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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 21, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group III, claims 11-15 and 28-34, in the reply filed on December 16, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 16-27 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 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.
Claims 11-15 and 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. ("Low-cost manufacturing of metal–ceramic composites through electrodeposition of metal into ceramic scaffold." ACS applied materials & interfaces 11.4 (2019): 4364-4372; cited in IDS filed 5/21/2025) in view of Drazenovic (US 20110169396).
Regarding claim 11, Huang et al. teaches a method of fabricating a metal-ceramic composite, the method comprising:
freeze-casting a ceramic slurry to yield a freeze-cast slurry (Results and Discussion, first paragraph, starting at line 16, i.e., “freeze-casting process”), wherein the ceramic slurry comprises:
ceramic microstructures or nanostructures (Results and Discussion: i.e., “alumina microplatelets”);
silica nanopowder (Results and Discussion: i.e., silica nanoparticles); and
a binder (Results and Discussion: i.e., alginate);
drying the freeze-cast slurry to yield a freeze-dried slurry (Results and Discussion, line 20, i.e., “freeze-drying”);
sintering the freeze-dried slurry to yield a ceramic matrix defining a multiplicity of pores (Results and Discussion, lines 25-28, i.e., “the freeze-casted scaffold was heated in two steps”); and
electrodepositing metal in the pores, thereby yielding the metal-ceramic composite (Results and Discussion, 2nd full paragraph and Fig. 1, i.e., “electroplating of Cu inside the pores of the ceramic scaffold”).
Huang et al. does not explicitly teach the slurry comprises a dispersant.
Drazenovic teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor ceramic comprising the step of forming a slurry containing a dispersant to prevent the alumina particles from clumping (paragraph 141).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the slurry of Huang et al. by incorporating a dispersant, as taught by Drazenovic, to prevent alumina particles from clumping.
Regarding claim 12, Huang et al. teaches compressing the freeze-dried slurry before sintering the freeze-dried slurry to control a density and a size of the pores (Results and Discussion, first paragraph, i.e., “compression step to reduce the gaps between the ceramic lamella” before the heating steps).
Regarding claim 13, Huang et al. teaches compressing occurs perpendicular to a lamellar direction in the freeze-dried slurry, thereby compressing lamellae together to reduce a size of the pores (Materials and Methods, Freeze-Casting paragraph, i.e., “freeze-cast green body was then compressed in the direction perpendicular to the direction of the growth of ice crystals to reduce the porosity of the green body”).
Regarding claim 14, Huang et al. teaches wherein, after the compressing, a porosity of the freeze-dried slurry is in a range of about 32% (page 4370, right column, third line from bottom).
Regarding claim 15, Huang et al. teaches sintering the compressed sample at 1600°C (Materials and Methods, Sintering paragraph). This temperature would be greater than a melting temperature of the silica nanopowder since it is the same temperature as that used by the instant application.
Regarding claim 29, Huang et al. teaches a slurry comprised of 16.5 g alumina microplatelets, 1 g silica nanoparticles (equivalent to weight ratio of 0.061), and 1.75 g alginate (equivalent to a binder weight ratio of 0.11). In addition, Huang et al. in view of Drazenovic teaches a dispersant having a weight percent of 0.1% (paragraph 141 of Drazenovic). These weight ratios broadly read on the “about” ranges of the instant claim. According to MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, changes in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. It is not inventive to discover the optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 30, Huang et al. teaches wherein the metal-ceramic composite comprises:
a ceramic matrix defining a multiplicity of pores (Fig. 1); and
a metal electrodeposited in the multiplicity of pores (Fig. 1), wherein the metal-ceramic composite is electrically conductive (page 4366, right column, third line from the bottom).
Regarding claim 31, Huang et al. teaches wherein the ceramic matrix comprises alumina (Results and Discussion, i.e., “alumina microplatelets”).
Regarding claim 32, Huang et al. teaches wherein the metal comprises copper (Results and Discussion, second full paragraph, i.e., “electroplating of Cu”).
Regarding claim 33, Huang et al. teaches wherein the multiplicity of pores is filled with the metal (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 34, Huang et al. teaches wherein the metal-ceramic composite further defines microchannels within the metal-ceramic composite (see Fig. 1, i.e., pores of the ceramic scaffold).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. ("Low-cost manufacturing of metal–ceramic composites through electrodeposition of metal into ceramic scaffold." ACS applied materials & interfaces 11.4 (2019): 4364-4372; cited in IDS filed 5/21/2025) in view of Drazenovic (US 20110169396), and further in view of Sun et al. (US 20150329430).
Huang et al. and Drazenovic teach the method as applied above in claim 11. The references do not explicitly teach the pH of the slurry.
Sun et al. teaches a method of fabricating a ceramic material on a surface of a substrate. Sun et al. teaches that a pH of the slurry may be between 5 and 12 to promote stability of the slurry (paragraph 39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slurry of Huang et al. three pH between 5 and 12, as taught by Sun et al., to promote stability of the slurry. This range encompasses the instant claim range. According to MPEP 2144.05, a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Gregory Tryder can be reached at (571) 270-7365. 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.
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795