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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 15, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Rejection
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11-15 and 30-34 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) and Khoee et al. ("Fabrication of tungsten carbide foam through gel-casting process using nontoxic sodium alginate." International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials 43 (2014): 115-120).
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, a dispersant comprising ammonium citrate tribasic, or the weight ratio of the dispersant to the ceramic microstructures or nanostructures is in a range of about 0.001 to about 0.005.
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).
Khoee et al. teaches a process of fabricating tungsten carbide foam comprising forming a ceramic solution having a sufficient amount of dispersant, such as ammonium citrate tribasic (page 116, left column, last paragraph), decreases viscosity of the slurry due to an increase in the density of electron cloud on the surface of ceramic particles and static repulsive forces (page 116, right column, third paragraph). Khoee et al. also teaches that ammonium citrate tribasic is a suitable dispersant for ceramic solution to decrease viscosity and improve the uniformity of the slurry (see 2.2 Procedure section, 5th paragraph bridging left and right column).
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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further selected ammonium citrate tribasic as a dispersant, because Khoee et al. teaches that ammonium citrate tribasic is a suitable dispersant for ceramic solution to decreases viscosity and improve the uniformity of the slurry (see 2.2 Procedure section of Khoee et al.).
Furthermore, Huang et al. in view of Drazenovic teaches a dispersant having a weight percent of 0.1% (paragraph 141 of Drazenovic). This weight ratio overlaps with the instant claim range or broadly reads 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). Since Khoee et al. teaches that the amount of dispersant affects the viscosity of the slurry, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amounted dispersant in the slurry through routine experimentation to improve the viscosity.
Huang et al. does not explicitly teach wherein a weight ratio of the binder to the ceramic microstructures or nanostructures is in a range of about 0.01 to about 0.05.
However, Huang et al. teaches a slurry comprised of 16.5 g alumina microplatelets, and 1.75 g alginate (see Materials and Methods section, first paragraph), or equivalent to a binder to ceramic microstructures or nanostructures weight ratio of 0.11. This weight ratio broadly reads 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, Huang et al. specifically teaches that the alginate, i.e., binder, is added as a “rheology modifier to prevent the suspension from sedimentation during the freeze-casting process” (see Results and Discussion, left column, starting at line 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of binder sufficient for the sedimentation prevention as suggested by Huang et al.
Huang et al. does not explicitly teach a weight ratio of the silica nanopowder to the ceramic microstructures or nanostructures is about 0.1 to 0.2.
However, Huang et al. teaches a slurry comprised of 1g silica nanoparticles to 16.5g alumina microplatelets (see Materials and Methods section, first paragraph), or equivalent to a weight ratio of 0.061. This weight ratio broadly reads 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, Huang et al. teaches that silica (SiO2) nanoparticles are added to the slurry to function as the binder between alumina platelets during the electrodeposition process (Results and Discussion, first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of silica to improve the binding between alumina platelets during the electrodeposition process as suggested by Huang et al.
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 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. in view of Drazenovic, Khoee et al., and further in view of Sun et al. (US 20150329430).
Huang et al., Drazenovic, and Khoee et al. teach the method as applied in claim 11 above. 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).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, filed July 15, 2026, page 7, Applicant argues “the Office Action has provided no reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range. Accordingly, for at least these reasons, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established, and the burden has not been shifted to the application to prove nonobviousness.”
The current office action has been updated to address the amendment to claim 11. Khoee et al. is now relied on to teach the ammonium citrate tribasic dispersant. Regarding the weight ratios of the binder, silica nano powder, and dispersant, the office action has also provided the rationales from the prior art to modify the ratio or amount of these components.
Specifically, Huang et al. teaches that the alginate, i.e., binder, is added as a “rheology modifier to prevent the suspension from sedimentation during the freeze-casting process” (see Results and Discussion, left column, starting at line 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of binder sufficient for the sedimentation prevention as suggested by Huang et al.
Huang et al. further teaches that silica (SiO2) nanoparticles are added to the slurry to function as the binder between alumina platelets during the electrodeposition process (Results and Discussion, first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of silica to improve the binding between alumina platelets during the electrodeposition process as suggested by Huang et al.
Khoee et al. teaches a ceramic solution having a sufficient amount of dispersant, such as ammonium citrate tribasic (page 116, left column, last paragraph), decreases viscosity of the slurry (page 116, right column, third paragraph) which would improve the uniformity of the slurry (see 2.2 Procedure section, fifth paragraph bridging left and right column). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amounted dispersant in the ceramic slurry of Huang et al. through routine experimentation to improve the viscosity and uniformity of the slurry, as suggested by Khoee et al.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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
Prosecution Insights