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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on January 13, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 7 – 8, 16 and 20 are currently amended. Claims 2 – 3 and 6 are cancelled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1, 4 – 5 and 7 – 21 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 1 line 13 recites “wherein the method comprises etiher”. The claim should be amended to addresses the typographical error.
Claim 1 line 29 recites “ceramic body with one or more tortuous passages extending therehtrough.” The claim should be amended to addresses the typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 16 – 20 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 claims 16 and 20, the phrase “and corresponding recombinations of the subpassages” (akin to "or the like") renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " and corresponding recombinations"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 17 – 19 are rejected as indefinite based on their dependent status from rejected claim 16.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 4 – 5, 7 – 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh et al. (US Pat. No. 5,993,750), in view of Denton (GB 2 255 309 B, of record), and further in view of Nakamura (JP 2014-233883 A, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Ghosh et al. teaches a process for forming a ceramic fluidic module for a flow reactor (Col. 1 lines 4 – 63; Col. 2 lines 1 – 18; “unitary ceramic body 10” Col. 3 lines 30 – 56), comprising:
pressing a first volume of a binder-coated ceramic powder to form a first pressed body (Col. 3 lines 65 – 67, cont. Col. 4 lines 1 – 9);
positioning on the first pressed body a positive passage mold of a passage (e.g., “features like microchannels can be formed by embedding sacrificial member which burn away during sintering”, Col. 4 lines 10 – 41);
covering the first pressed body and the passage mold with a second volume of the binder-coated ceramic powder; pressing the second volume of binder-coated ceramic powder, the passage mold, and the first pressed body to form a second pressed body (e.g., Col. 3 lines 30 – 55 discloses, inter alia, “The individual ceramic layers are initially in the green state, but are sintered together to form the unitary ceramic body 10.”, and “The use of the term "green" means that when particulate ceramic powder, preferably mixed with an organic binder is subjected to uniform compacting forces in order to provide an unsintered preform which has uniform density. One particular effective material is a tetragonal zirconia ceramic powder that can be micromolded to form the layer by standard methods such as injection molding, gel casting, tape casting, dry pressing or cold isostatic pressing.”)
heating the second pressed body to remove the passage mold and sintering the second pressed body to form the ceramic fluidic module having the passage extending therethrough (Col. 4 lines 36 – 38; Col. 5 lines 63 – 67, cont. Col. 6 lines 1 – 2),
wherein the method comprises either: (i) positioning a passage mold on the first pressed body includes positioning a pre-formed passage mold on the first pressed body or (ii) positioning a passage mold on the first pressed body includes forming the passage mold on a surface of the first pressed body (Col. 4 lines 24 – 41, Col. 5 lines 55 – 67, cont. Col. 6 lines 1 – 11);
wherein the ceramic fluidic module comprises a unified closed-porosity ceramic body (10) with one or more tortuous passages extending therethrough (e.g., “channels 24”, “mixing channels 26” FIG. 3a-b, “communicating fluid channels 45 and 47 and a distributing manifold 48a” FIG. 4a, see Col. 4 lines 63 – 67, cont. Col. 5 lines 1 – 12).
Ghosh et al. does not specifically disclose (i) wherein positioning a pre-formed passage mold on the first pressed body includes inserting a protrusion on the pre-formed passage mold into a hole defined in the first pressed body; or (ii) wherein forming the passage mold includes: a. first filling a passage mold master with molten mold material and then pressing an open face of the passage mold master against the surface of the first pressed body; or b. first placing an open face of an empty passage mold master against the surface of the first pressed body and then filling the passage mold master with molten mold material.
Ghosh et al. Col. 4 lines 10 – 15, however, discloses that “features like feed-through, through-holes, mixing chambers and reaction chambers can be formed in each layer in the green stage by incorporating those features in the mold.” It is noted that said feed-through, through-holes correlate to the claimed “a hole defined in the first pressed body.”
Denton, previously cited in the Non-Final mailed 10/29/2025, teaches a process for forming a ceramic fluidic module for a flow reactor (e.g., “electrochemical power storage cell”, see page 15, lines 9 – 29, cont. page 16 lines 1 – 25). Denton page 12 lines 1 – 8, discloses the core 20 could comprise a pair of truncated cylindrical bosses 32 (analogous to the claimed “a protrusion on the pre-formed passage mold”), on opposite sides of the core, and after the core removal and sintering, the spaces occupied by these bosses 32 provide openings through the envelope walls (analogous to Ghosh et al. “feed-through, through-holes”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify in the same way the pre-formed passage mold (Ghosh et al. “sacrificial members”) in the process of Ghosh et al. with Denton’s protruding bosses 32, such that positioning a pre-formed passage mold (modified Ghosh et al. “sacrificial members” with Denton’s bosses 32) on the first pressed body includes inserting a protrusion (Denton’s bosses 32) on the pre-formed passage mold into a hole (Ghosh et al. “feed-through, through-holes”) defined in the first pressed body, since Ghosh et al. teaches that “features like feed-through, through-holes, can be formed in each layer in the green stage by incorporating those features in the mold” (Col. 4 lines 10 – 15), for the purpose of providing openings through the pressed body, as suggested by the prior art of Denton page 12 lines 1 – 8. See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
Nakamura, previously cited in the Non-Final mailed 10/29/2025, teaches a flat plate-like ceramic member formed with a hollow portion and integrally fired, and a method for manufacturing the same (Nakamura lines 2-17), wherein a ceramic powder is filled in the receiving part 51 of the mold to such an extent that a groove can be sufficiently formed (FIG. 5A), and first press molding is performed. Next, a groove 22 is dug so that a core can be formed on the surface of the first press-formed body 21 (FIG. 5B). The coating material 14 is applied to the surface of the groove 22 (FIG. 5C) [analogous to the claimed “an open face of an empty passage mold master”], and the groove 22 coated with the coating material 14 is filled with wax 13 (FIG. 5D) to process the surface (FIG. 5(e)) [analogous to the claimed “first placing an open face of an empty passage mold master against the surface of the first pressed body and then filling the passage mold master with molten mold material”]. (Nakamura lines 200-210).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the process of Ghosh/Denton wherein forming the passage mold includes first placing an open face of an empty passage mold master against the surface of the first pressed body and then filling the passage mold master with molten mold material, as taught and suggested by Nakamura, since one of ordinary skill in the art could have selected from a finite number of identified, and predictable solutions e.g., between the methods to produce the passages taught by Ghosh/Denton and Nakamura, with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming the passages on the molded body. See MPEP 2143 (I)(Rationale E).
Regarding claim 4, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the process comprises inserting a protrusion on the pre-formed passage mold into a hole defined in the first pressed body (see the discussion of Ghosh in view of Denton in claim 1 above), and the hole is a blind hole or a through hole (e.g., Ghosh et al. Col. 4 lines 10 – 15, “features like feed-through, through-holes,” and “mixing chambers and reaction chambers” correlating to the claimed “blind hole”).
Regarding claim 5, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the process of claim 4, further comprising inserting a mold stub into the through hole (see the discussion of Ghosh in view of Denton in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the process of claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein forming the passage mold includes first filling a passage mold master with molten mold material and then pressing an open face of the passage mold master against the surface of the first pressed body.
Nakamura, however, discloses a step analogous to the claimed “first placing an open face of an empty passage mold master against the surface of the first pressed body and then filling the passage mold master with molten mold material” – see the discussion of Nakamura in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, rearranging the prior art process so that forming the passage mold includes first filling a passage mold master with molten mold material and then pressing an open face of the passage mold master against the surface of the first pressed body, would have been obvious and within the skill set of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since reversing the order of such steps would not have changed the final ceramic fluidic module resulting from the process, and since “In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes” (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 8, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the process of claim 1, wherein forming the passage mold includes first placing an open face of an empty passage mold master against the surface of the first pressed body and then filling the passage mold master with molten mold material (see the discussion of claim 1 and claim 7 above, MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C)).
Regarding claim 9, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the process of claim 1, wherein pressing a first volume of binder-coated ceramic powder includes forming at least one embossed channel in a surface of the first pressed body (see Nakamura FIG. 5(a)-(e)).
Regarding claim 10, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the process of claim 9, wherein positioning a passage mold on the first pressed body includes filling the at least one embossed channel with a molten mold material (see Nakamura FIG. 5(a)-(e)).
Regarding claim 11, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the process of claim 10, further comprising, prior to filling the at least one embossed channel with the molten mold material, coating surfaces of the at least one embossed channel with a material configured to impede infiltration of the mold material into the first pressed body (Nakamura lines 200-204 “The coating material 14 is applied to the surface of the groove 22 (FIG. 5C)”).
Regarding claim 12, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the process of claim 9, wherein positioning a passage mold on the first pressed body includes positioning a pre-formed passage mold in the at least one embossed channel (e.g., Nakamura discloses providing embossed channels (grooves 22) on a first press-formed body 21, see Nakamura’s FIG. 5(b), for the purpose of avoiding a position shift of the core, Nakamura lines 196-199). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Danton/Nakamura by providing Nakamura’s grooves on the first pressed body before embedding Denton’s core 20 into the first pressed body for the purpose of e.g., avoiding a position shift of the core on the next pressing step, as taught by Nakamura. See MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 13, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the process of claim 12, further comprising heating the first pressed body to melt the pre-formed passage mold within the at least one embossed channel (see Ghosh Col. 4 lines 10 – 41, Denton page 3, lines 9-14).
Regarding claim 14, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the first volume of the binder-coated ceramic powder is pressed with a first force, wherein the second volume of the binder-coated ceramic powder, the passage mold, and the first pressed body are pressed with a second force, and wherein the first force is less than the second force (Nakamura, in lines 211-253 discloses a first press pressure and a second press pressure larger than the first pressure, lines 245-246).
Regarding claim 15, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the process of claim 14, except for, wherein the first force is from 3% to 80% of the second force.
However, Nakamura discloses that cracks occurred in the sintered body when too low of a first press pressure is applied (Nakamura lines 259-260), and that when making the first press pressure larger than the second press pressure resulted in a four-point bending strength of 150 MPa, lower than the examples where the second press pressure is larger than the first press pressure (e.g., 350 MPa or more Nakamura lines 254-258). As the four-point bending strength and the appearance of cracks are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said first and second press pressures, with said four-point bending strength decreasing with larger first press pressures and the appearance of cracks happening with too low first press pressures, the precise ratio of the first force to the second force would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio of first force to second force cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio of the first force to the second force in the process of Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura to obtain the desired balance between the four-point bending strength while avoiding the appearance of cracks (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 16, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches a fluidic module for a flow reactor produced by the process of claim 1, comprising: a unified closed-porosity ceramic body (Ghosh Col. 1 lines 4 – 63; Col. 2 lines 1 – 18; “unitary ceramic body 10” Col. 3 lines 30 – 56) having a first mean density disposed within a first layer that is greater than a second mean density disposed within a second layer (it is noted that Ghosh, Denton and Nakamura disclose pressing a positive passage mold/core into a first pressed body as discussed in the claims above, hence, inherently having “a first mean density disposed within a first layer that is greater than a second mean density disposed within a second layer”, as defined by Applicant’s disclosure at paragraph ¶ [0070] of the instant application specification “the green density of the first green layer 164 is greater than the mean green density of the second layer 168 due to the pre-pressing of the body 150 in the prior steps”; see MPEP § 2112.01: It has been held that when the claimed and prior art products are at least substantially identical, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)),
the first and second layers axially serially arranged between opposed major surfaces of the ceramic body (see Ghosh et al. FIGs. 1 – 7, Denton’s FIGs. 1, 4, 9 and 11; see Nakamura’s FIGs. 5 – 6); and
a tortuous fluid passage extending through the ceramic body and adjoining the first layer of the ceramic body (see Ghosh FIGs. 1 – 7), the tortuous fluid passage comprising one or more divisions of the passage into subpassages and corresponding recombinations of the subpassages (see Ghosh et al. FIGs. 1 – 7).
Regarding claim 17, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the fluidic module of claim 16, wherein the tortuous fluid passage adjoins the first layer only at an interface between the first and second layers (e.g., see Ghosh et al. FIGs. 1 – 7, Denton’s FIG. 9; Nakamura’s FIGs. 3(g), 4(h), 6(i)).
Regarding claim 18, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the fluidic module of claim 16, wherein the tortuous fluid passage adjoins the second layer only at an interface between the first and second layers (e.g., see Ghosh et al. FIGs. 1 – 7, Denton’s FIG. 9; Nakamura’s FIGs. 3(g), 4(h), 6(i)).
Regarding claim 20, Ghosh/Nakamura/Denton teaches a fluidic module for a flow reactor produced by the process of claim 1, comprising:
a unified closed-porosity ceramic body having a grain structure with at least one discontinuity disposed between opposed major surfaces of the ceramic body (e.g., see Ghosh et al. FIGs. 1 – 7, Denton’s FIG. 9; Nakamura’s FIGs. 3(g), 4(h), 6(i)), the discontinuity defining an interface between first and second layers of the ceramic body (e.g., see Ghosh et al. FIGs. 1 – 7, Denton’s FIG. 9; Nakamura’s FIGs. 3(g), 4(h), 6(i)), the first and second layers serially arranged between the opposed major surfaces; and a tortuous fluid passage extending through the ceramic body and adjoining the interface (e.g., see Denton’s FIG. 9, 15; Nakamura’s FIGs. 5 – 6)), the tortuous fluid passage comprising one or more divisions of the passage into subpassages and corresponding recombinations of the subpassages (see Ghosh et al. FIGs. 1 – 7).
Regarding claim 21, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the fluidic module of claim 1, wherein the protrusion (e.g., Denton’s bosses 32) of the pre-formed passage mold extends from one side of the pre-formed passage mold as a raised feature relative to the one side (see the discussion of Denton in claim 1 above and FIG. 3, page 12 lines 1 – 8).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh et al. (US Pat. No. 5,993,750) in view of Denton (GB 2 255 309 B) and Nakamura (JP 2014-233883 A), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of HU et al. (CN 208839570 U, of record).
Regarding claim 19, Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura teaches the fluidic module of claim 16 being made of ceramic material, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein a material of the ceramic body is silicon carbide.
In the same field of endeavor of ceramic micro-channel reactors, HU et al. teaches that his invention adopts silicon carbide material, since “silicon carbide material not only has high strength, high temperature resistance, corrosion resistance, good thermal shock resistance, good heat conductivity and high heat efficiency and so on, at the same time, can be used for preparing silicon carbide chip flammable, explosive and virulent, severe reaction conditions can reduce the happening of the accidental situation.” (HU et al. lines 93-97).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected silicon carbine as the material of the ceramic body of Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. One would have been motivated to select silicon carbine as the ceramic for the ceramic body of Ghosh/Denton/Nakamura for the purpose of provide a fluidic module for a flow reactor having high strength, high temperature resistant, corrosion resistance, as taught by HU et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Caze et al. (US 2004/0123626 A1): [0014] In another aspect, the present invention relates to a method of manufacturing a microstructure for chemical processing and manufacture. The method includes the steps of filling a microchannel defined by a plurality of microchannel walls with a slurry, removing a portion of the slurry from the microchannel such that a slurry layer coats the plurality of microchannel walls, and heating the slurry layer for a sufficient time and at a sufficient temperature to cure and bond the slurry layer to the plurality of microchannel walls. The microchannel is configured to accommodate chemicals to be processed and the plurality of microchannel walls are formed of glass, ceramic, glass-ceramic or a combination of these materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights