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 Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on January 27, 2026
Status of Rejections
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
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 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.
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 (equivalent to a binder to ceramic microstructures or nanostructures weight ratio of 0.11). 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 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 16.5g alumina microplatelets and 1g silica nanoparticles (equivalent to weight ratio of 0.061). 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).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, filed February 23, 2026, page 6, Applicant argues with respect to claim 29, which is now incorporated into claim 1, that Huang et al. does not teach the binder to nanostructure weight ratio of about 0.01 to about 0.05; that Huang et al. teaches a value that is twice the upper limit of the range and that the office action does not establish that the ratio is a result effective variable and thus fell to establish prima facie case of obviousness.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but are unpersuasive. While the examiner acknowledges that Huang et al. teaches a binder ratio outside of the claimed range, as noted in the office action, 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). Applicant has not provided evidence that the binder ratio is critical to support patentability of the instant claim. 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 modified the amount of binder sufficient for the sedimentation prevention as suggested by Huang et al.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights