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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (6 – 10 – 2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Singh et al. (Sintering of Oxide Ceramics Under Rapid Microwave Heating, 2016) is not prior art due to having a publication date of (9 – 12 – 2016). Applicant notes that the instant application claiming priority to App. 15498709 which itself have priority to a provisional application App. 62/328319 with a filing date of (27 – 4 – 2016).
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Singh / Singh as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
As applicant noted Singh has the following publication information. Namely, “Processing and Processing, Properties, and Design of Advanced Ceramics and Composites: Ceramic Transactions, Volume 259, which does have a publication date of (9 – 12 – 2016).However, Singh states on (Pg. IV, Preface) that this volume contains a collection of 33 papers presented during the 2015 Materials Science and Technology (MS&T '15), held October 4 th – 8th, 2015 at the Columbus Conventions Center, Columbus, Ohio. Papers from the following symposia are included in this volume. As such, the information provided within Volume 259 is understood to have been presented to the public at the aforementioned MS&T '15 conference in Columbus, Ohio. Accordingly, the information disclosed within the publication of Volume 259 is understood have been disclosed to the public by presentation in Columbus, Ohio, between (October 4 th – 8th, 2015) is found to be prior to the provisional application’s filing date of (4 – 27 – 2016). Thus, Singh is understood to still be appropriate prior art.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Singh / Singh as modified.
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 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.
A.) Claim(s) 1-5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saji et al. (JPH 07187760 A, hereinafter Saji) in view of Singh et al. (Processing, Properties and Design of Advanced Ceramics, 2016, hereinafter Singh)
Regarding claim 1,
A method for making a ceramic having transgranular fracture behavior, comprising:
forming a green body comprising barium titanate or yttrium oxide powder;
densifying the green body using microwaves to heat the green body at a rate of 100°C/min to 1100 °C and
then holding at 1100 °C for 15 minutes,
wherein a ceramic is formed, and
wherein there are dislocations within the ceramic; and
cooling the ceramic to room temperature to trap the dislocations in the ceramic, resulting in a ceramic having a transgranular fracture mode.
Saji teaches the following:
([0009]) teaches that the raw powder of the synthetic gemstone can be alumina powder and magnesia powder to which one or more of chromium oxide, titanium oxide, iron oxide, yttrium oxide, lanthanum oxide, or nickel oxide have been added.
([0014]) teaches that the present invention is a method of molding raw powder of synthetic gemstones and then sintering them, it is possible to manufacture objects with complex cross-sectional shapes as long as they are moldable. Sintering can be carried out at a lower temperature than conventional methods, at 1300 to 1800 degrees Celsius, and in a short heating time.
& d.) ([0017]) teaches the molded product is sintered by heating it to 1300-1800 degrees Celsius, Celsius, for several tens of minutes to several hours using microwaves with a frequency of 2.45-200 GHz to obtain alumina-based synthetic gemstones such as artificial gem.
([0014]) teaches after heating and holding, the next step is cooling to room temperature.
Regarding Claim 1, Saji is silent on to heating the green body to 1100 °C at a rate of 100 °C/min. In analogous art for the production of a ceramic comprising yttrium oxide via flash sintering, Singh suggests details regarding heating the green body to 1100 °C at a rate of 100 °C/min, and in this regard, Singh teaches the following:
(Pg. 235, ¶2) teaches that the samples were heated via gyrotron system. At temperatures below 800 °C densification did not occur. As such, the temperature utilized on the ceramic is understood to impact the density of the article / ability for sintering to occur. (Pg. 235, Results and Discussion, ¶1) teaches the Y2O3 was heated at heating rates ranging from 50 to 200 °C / min with to a temperature range of 800 to 1400 °C. With (Pg. 236, Fig. 2) showing that the heating rate impacts the relative density of the article obtained.
Highlighting, that the production method utilized, namely densifying and heating a ceramic green body using microwaves to obtain a ceramic article is understood to be the same process implemented by applicant. As such, utilizing the same process as applicant is understood to form and lead to dislocations within the ceramic article. Accordingly, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and augment the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a ceramic article via microwave sintering of Saji. By modifying the sintering temperature to be in the range of 800 to 1400 °C, as taught by Singh. Highlighting, one would be motivated to modify and optimize the sintering temperature to be in range of 800 to 1400 °C as it impacts the density of the final article obtained / ability for obtaining a sintered ceramic article via microwave sintering. Accordingly, due to the impact that the sintering temperature has on density, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein said green body is formed by cold isostatic pressure, slip casting, tape casting, or any combination thereof.
Saji teaches the following:
([0017]) teaches that the raw powder of this synthetic gemstone is molded by a conventionally known powder molding method, for example by forming the raw powder into a slurry, casting it into a plaster mold for slip casting, molding it into the required shape, drying it, and performing a process to remove the binder.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein said green body is densified using a cavity designed to produce uniform heating throughout said green body.
Saji teaches the following:
([0017]) teaches that the molded product formed into the required shape is then placed in a vacuum chamber. With ([0012]) adding that the frequency impacts the penetration depth of the microwave and becomes shallow, and when it becomes shallow, it is impossible to uniformly heat a molded product having a certain thickness. As such, the process utilized including the vacuum chamber is understood to provide and produce uniform heating throughout said green body.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the microwave frequency is greater than 30 GHz.
Saji teaches the following:
([0017]) teaches the molded product is sintered by heating it to 1300-1800 degrees Celsius, Celsius, for several tens of minutes to several hours using microwaves with a frequency of 2.45-200 GHz to obtain alumina-based synthetic gemstones such as artificial gem.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the microwaves are used without the use of a susceptor or indirect heating.
Saji teaches the following:
Saji makes no mention of using a susceptor or indirect heating. As such, Saji is understood to utilize microwaves without the use of a susceptor or indirect heating.
B.) Claim(s) 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saji in view of Singh and in further view of Guillaume Bernard-Granger et al. (US-2009/0,137,380, hereinafter Bernard-Granger)
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein said ceramic powder is doped with calcium prior to green body formation
Regarding Claim 6, Saji as modified by Singh teaches the above detailed. Saji adding on ([0009]) other possible materials equivalent to yttrium oxide that can be used include amongst those is alumina. Saji as modified by Singh is silent on doping the ceramic with calcium prior to green body formation. In analogous art for the manufacturing of sintered ceramic products including alumina, Bernard-Granger suggests details regarding dopants added during processing, and in this regard Bernard-Granger teaches the following:
([0011 & 0012]) teaches that, according to the invention, one reaches this object, by means of a sintered alumina product with a density greater than 99.95% of the theoretical density and made, for more than 99.95% of its mass, from alpha alumina (A2O3) and, preferably, a dopant selected from Sm2O2, CaO and mixtures thereof. The ceramic article according to the invention has an advantageously high mechanical strength and a very good transparency to infrared radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and augment the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a ceramic article via microwave sintering of Saji as modified by Singh. By further augmenting the composition to include dopants such as CaO, as taught by Bernard-Granger. Highlighting, the use of dopants allows for the production of a ceramic article ceramic article that has a high mechanical strength and a very good transparency to infrared radiation, ([0012).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rybakov et al. (Microwave Ultra-Band Sintering of Oxide Ceramics, 2015) – teaches that it was reported that a very fast “flash” sintering of ceramics could be attained when a dc or low-frequency ac voltage was applied to a powder compact. This study shows that fully-dense ceramics can be obtained by microwave sintering with no additional voltage applied in a time interval as short as is observed in flash sintering.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741