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 .
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.
Rejection based on US 333 in view of US 099
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200114333A1 (hereinafter 333) in view of US20110171099A1 (hereinafter US 099)
Regarding claim 1, US 333 discloses a ceramic mixture for forming a ceramic material (see US 333 claims 10, 17; figure 3; and paragraphs 0023, 0072, 0149-0174).
Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
US 333 discloses ceramic nanoparticles (see US 333 paragraphs 0022, 0071-0072, 0155-0157, 0175, 0179, 0232).
US 333 discloses a primary pore former polymer capable of crosslinking (see US 333 paragraphs 0161, 0175, 0179, 0232 (US 333 discloses “any cross-linkable polymer. The polymer resin may be an acrylate that can be cross-linked using a thermal initiator (e.g. a cross-linking agent), for example but not limited to, polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) plus a thermal initiator (e.g. 3 wt % Luperox 231)” (see US 333 paragraph 0161), “a blended slurry of 70 wt % 8 mol % Y2O3− ZrO2 (8YSZ) with PEGDA may be used as an ink to form a log-pile 3D structure” (see US 333 paragraph 0175), “a blended slurry mixture of 60 wt % 3Y-TZP with PEGDA using an additive manufacturing technique of PμSL (before sintering and polymer burn-out)” (see US 333 paragraph 0179) and a slurry mixture of “metal oxide nanoparticles (3 mol % Y2O3− doped ZrO2 (3Y-TZP, Tosoh USA, Inc, Grove City, Ohio) and PEGDA (Mn 575)… 3 wt % Luperox® 231” (see US 333 paragraph 0232).).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 333 is substantially identical to the claimed primary pore former polymer of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 333 is presumed inherently capable of crosslinking.
US 333 does not disclose a secondary pore former polymer configured to form micron-sized pores in the ceramic material, wherein the secondary pore former polymer is a different material than the primary pore former polymer.
US 099 discloses a process of forming a porous material comprising at least two powders of fine and coarse particles, blended with an organic material comprising an organic pore former and/or a binder and a solvent (see US 099 abstract and paragraphs 0017-0022, 0060 tables 2-4). US 099 discloses polyethylene pore former (see US 099 paragraphs 0052, 0060, Table 2-4). US 099 discloses “to obtain wall porosity levels of the structure that are compatible with use as a particulate filter, i.e. typically between 35 and 65, it is in general necessary to additionally introduce, into the blend, organic pore-forming agents. These organic pore-forming agents are vaporized at relatively high temperature during the firing” (see US 099 paragraph 0052).
US 099 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. porous/ceramic material and/or method of making a porous/ceramic material.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a polyethylene pore-forming agent, as disclosed in US 099, into the composition of US 333 because it would assist with forming a porous material and/or because it would assist with forming a porous material with different pore configuration and/or because it would assist with customizing a pore structure of a porous material.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a polyethylene pore-forming agent, as disclosed in US 099, into the composition of US 333 because it would assist with forming a wall porosity level of the structure that are compatible with use as a particulate filter.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a polyethylene pore-forming agent, as disclosed in US 099, into the composition of US 333 and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. form a ceramic mixture and/or assist with forming a porous material.
Hence, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses ceramic mixture for forming a ceramic material, comprising ceramic nanoparticles; a primary pore former polymer capable of crosslinking; a secondary pore former polymer configured to form micron-sized pores in the ceramic material, wherein the secondary pore former polymer is a different material than the primary pore former polymer.
The as-originally filed specification does not define the term “different material”. Herein, “different material” is understood to be different in composition, properties or structure/form. US 333 in view of US 099 is deemed to disclose “secondary pore former polymer is a different material than the primary pore former polymer” since the polyethylene pore-forming agent, as disclosed in US 099, is different in form and/or composition from the any cross-linkable polymer, including polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA), as disclosed in US 333.
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 333 in view of US 099 is substantially identical to the claimed secondary pore former polymer of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 333 in view of US 099 is presumed inherently capable of forming micron-sized pores in the ceramic material.
US 333 in view of US 099 discloses a polymerization initiator (see US 333 paragraphs 0161, 0162 0168, 0177).
Regarding claim 2, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the ceramic nanoparticles comprise yttria stabilized zirconia (see US 333 paragraphs 0133, 0155, 0175, 0236; Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the primary pore former polymer is poly(ethyleneglycol) diacrylate (see US 333 paragraphs 0161, 0175, 0179, 0232).
Regarding claim 4, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the secondary pore former polymer is a polyethylene powder (see rejection of claim 1; see US 099 paragraphs 0052, 0060, Table 2-4).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 7, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 099 does not disclose an additive that adsorbs to a surface of the ceramic nanoparticles, the additive being present in an effective amount to promote dispersion of the ceramic nanoparticles in the ceramic mixture, as recited in claim 6, and discloses the additive is selected from the group consisting of a dispersant, and a lubricant, as recited in claim 7.
US 099 discloses an additive that adsorbs to a surface of the ceramic nanoparticles, the additive being present in an effective amount to promote dispersion of the ceramic nanoparticles in the ceramic mixture, as recited in claim 6, and discloses the additive is selected from the group consisting of a dispersant, and a lubricant, as recited in claim 7 (see US 099 paragraphs 0024, 0025, 0050, 0060-0061, Tables 2-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 333 in view of US 099 to incorporate an additive, such as binders, plasticizers, dispersants and lubricants, as disclosed in US 099 because it would assist with forming pores of the porous material and/or because it would assist with preventing clustering or forming agglomerates from forming the composition (US 099 discloses “organic materials incorporated into the blend are especially agents having a pore-forming functionality and pre-forming agents, such as binders, plasticizers, dispersants and lubricants, without this list however being exhaustive” (see US 099 paragraph 0024).).
It is understood that “effective amount” may be any amount. Herein, there must necessarily be a value within the prior art. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Regarding claim 8, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, US 333 in view of US 099 does not disclose an amount of the additive is in a range of greater than 0 weight% up to about 15 weight% of the weight of the primary pore former polymer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the addition of an additive to the composition must necessarily be greater than 0 weight% when present in the composition.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the concentration of the additive in US 333 in view of US 099 because if the concentration is too low then the additive may not affect the composition, i.e. forming pore and/or preventing clustering or forming agglomerates, and if the concentration is too high then it may negatively impact the formed porous material and/or would be a waste of materials/resources and increase cost (“Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical” (see MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A)).).
Regarding claim 9, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the ceramic nanoparticles are present at about 50 to 80 weight% of a total weight of the ceramic nanoparticles and the primary pore former polymer (see US 333 paragraphs 0022, 0175, 0179 and Table 1).
Regarding claim 10, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses an amount of the secondary pore former polymer is in a range of greater than 0 weight% and up to about 15 weight% of a weight of the blend (see US 099 Tables 2-4)
US 333 in view of US 099 does not disclose an amount of the secondary pore former polymer is in a range of greater than 0 weight% and up to about 15 weight% of a weight of the primary pore former polymer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the addition of a secondary pore former polymer to the composition must necessarily be greater than 0 weight% when present in the composition.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the concentration of the secondary pore former polymer in US 333 in view of US 099 because if the concentration is too low then the secondary pore former polymer may not be effective in assisting polymerization of the composition and if the concentration is too high then it may negatively impact the formed porous material and/or would be a waste of materials/resources and increase cost (“Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical” (see MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A)).).
Regarding claim 11 and claim 12, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the ceramic mixture is configured as an ink for extrusion-based printing, as recited in claim 11, and discloses the ceramic mixture is configured as a resin for light-based lithography printing, as recited in claim 12 (see rejection of claim 1).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 333 in view of US 099 is substantially identical to the claimed secondary pore former polymer of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 333 in view of US 099 is presumed inherently capable of being ink for extrusion-based printing, as recited in claim 11, and is presumed inherently capable of being resin for light-based lithography printing, as recited in claim 12.
Regarding claim 21, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the secondary pore former polymer is a rheology modifier (see US 099 paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 22, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the additive includes a small polymer having a molecular weight (Mn) less than 1000 (see rejection of claim 6).
In the alternative, if US 333 in view of US 099 does not disclose a “small polymer having a molecular weight (Mn) less than 1000”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 333 in view of US 099.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a low molecular weight polymer as the additive in US 333 in view of US 099 because it would assist in lower solution viscosity and/or because it would assist with improving plasticizing properties.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use optimize the molecular weight of additive polymer of US 333 in view of US 099 because if the molecular weight is too low then there may be insufficient green strength, or poor plasticity or binding and if the molecular weight is too high then the viscosity may be too thick or restrict/impede flow of the mixture (“Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical” (see MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A)).).
Regarding claim 23, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 333 in view of US 099 discloses the additive is a different material than the primary pore former polymer and the second pore former polymer (see rejection of claim 6).
Rejection based on US 333 in view of US 449
Claims 1-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200114333A1 (hereinafter 333) in view of US20030166449A1 (hereinafter US 449).
Regarding claim 1, US 333 discloses a ceramic mixture for forming a ceramic material (see US 333 claims 10, 17; figure 3; and paragraphs 0023, 0072, 0149-0174).
Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
US 333 discloses ceramic nanoparticles (see US 333 paragraphs 0022, 0071-0072, 0155-0157, 0175, 0179, 0232).
US 333 discloses a primary pore former polymer capable of crosslinking (see US 333 paragraphs 0161, 0175, 0179, 0232 (US 333 discloses “any cross-linkable polymer. The polymer resin may be an acrylate that can be cross-linked using a thermal initiator (e.g. a cross-linking agent), for example but not limited to, polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) plus a thermal initiator (e.g. 3 wt % Luperox 231)” (see US 333 paragraph 0161), “a blended slurry of 70 wt % 8 mol % Y2O3− ZrO2 (8YSZ) with PEGDA may be used as an ink to form a log-pile 3D structure” (see US 333 paragraph 0175), “a blended slurry mixture of 60 wt % 3Y-TZP with PEGDA using an additive manufacturing technique of PμSL (before sintering and polymer burn-out)” (see US 333 paragraph 0179) and a slurry mixture of “metal oxide nanoparticles (3 mol % Y2O3− doped ZrO2 (3Y-TZP, Tosoh USA, Inc, Grove City, Ohio) and PEGDA (Mn 575)… 3 wt % Luperox® 231” (see US 333 paragraph 0232).).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 333 is substantially identical to the claimed primary pore former polymer of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 333 is presumed inherently capable of crosslinking.
US 333 does not disclose a secondary pore former polymer configured to form micron-sized pores in the ceramic material, wherein the secondary pore former polymer is a different material than the primary pore former polymer.
US 449 discloses a porous ceramic material (see US 449 abstract and paragraphs 0004-0010) wherein the material is prepared from an organic paste comprising an organic portion or filler, an organic binder, a pore-forming agent and a solvent with, optionally, a deflocculating agent and/or an inorganic binder and/or a processability-enhancing agent (see US 449 claims 26, 31, 38; and paragraphs 0021, 0038, 0043, 0048, 0053, 0058, 0063, 0068, 0073). US 449 discloses polyethylene as a pore-forming agent (see US 449 paragraph 0028) and/or an extrusion-enhancing agent (see US 449 paragraph 0032), wherein the particle size of polyethylene may be 5 and 30 μm (see US 449 paragraphs 0028 and claims 36-37).
US 449 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. porous/ceramic material and/or method of making a porous/ceramic material.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a polyethylene component, which may be a pore-forming agent and/or an extrusion-enhancing agent, as disclosed in US 449, into the composition of US 333 because it would assist with forming a porous material and/or because it would assist the extrudability of the composition and/or because it would assist one of ordinary skill in the art with forming a desired porous characteristic of a porous material/controlling the characteristic of the porous material (US 449 discloses “making it possible to adjust, in a simple fashion, the key characteristics of the membrane structure, in other words pore diameter and porosity, this being done in a simple and rapid manner, as well as over a wide range of variation without loss of mechanical strength. Such adaptability is obtained independently for pore diameter and porosity; in other words, both criteria can be adjusted independently one of the other. This adaptability is obtained without modifying the sintering temperature of the parts obtained” (see US 449 paragraph 0008).).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a polyethylene component, which may be a pore-forming agent and/or an extrusion-enhancing agent, as disclosed in US 449, into the composition of US 333 and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. form a ceramic mixture and/or assist with forming a porous material.
Hence, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses ceramic mixture for forming a ceramic material, comprising ceramic nanoparticles; a primary pore former polymer capable of crosslinking; a secondary pore former polymer configured to form micron-sized pores in the ceramic material, wherein the secondary pore former polymer is a different material than the primary pore former polymer.
The as-originally filed specification does not define the term “different material”. Herein, “different material” is understood to be different in composition, properties or structure/form. US 333 in view of US 449 is deemed to disclose “secondary pore former polymer is a different material than the primary pore former polymer” since the pore-forming agent and/or the extrusion-enhancing agent, as disclosed in US 449, is different in form and/or composition from the any cross-linkable polymer, including polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA), as disclosed in US 333.
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 333 in view of US 449 is substantially identical to the claimed secondary pore former polymer of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 333 in view of US 449 is presumed inherently capable of forming micron-sized pores in the ceramic material.
US 333 in view of US 449 discloses a polymerization initiator (see US 333 paragraphs 0161, 0162 0168, 0177).
Regarding claim 2, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses the ceramic nanoparticles comprise yttria stabilized zirconia (see US 333 paragraphs 0133, 0155, 0175, 0236; Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses the primary pore former polymer is poly(ethyleneglycol) diacrylate (see rejection of claim 1; see US 333 paragraphs 0161, 0175, 0179, 0232).
Regarding claim 4, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses the secondary pore former polymer is a polyethylene powder (see rejection of claim 1; see US 449 paragraph 0028, 0038, 0043, 0058, 0063, 0068).
Regarding claim 5, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses the secondary pore former polymer is a polymer powder comprised of particles, wherein an average diameter of the particles is in a micron range (see rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 9, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses the mixture includes a sub-mixture consisting of the ceramic nanoparticles (A) and the primary pore former polymer (B) wherein A is about 50 to 80 weight% of the total weight of the ceramic mixture, wherein A + B = 100 weight% of the sub-mixture (see US 333 paragraphs 0022, 0175, 0179 and Table 1).
In the alternative, if US 333 in view of US 449 does not disclose a “sub-mixture consisting of the ceramic nanoparticles (A) and the primary pore former polymer (B)”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 333 in view of US 449.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a sub-mixture, as disclosed in US 333, prior to the addition of the secondary pore former polymer, as disclosed in US 449, because it would assist with achieving interactions between the ceramic nanoparticles and the primary pore former polymer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a sub-mixture, as disclosed in US 333, prior to the addition of the secondary pore former polymer, as disclosed in US 449, because it would assist with the achieving the features as disclosed in US 333, such as “three-dimensional structure includes a ceramic material having an open cell structure with a plurality of pores, where the pores form continuous channels through the ceramic material from one side of the ceramic material to an opposite side of the ceramic material” (see US 333 paragraph 0020; see also US 333 paragraphs 0021-0022, 0070, 0160, 0165).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a sub-mixture, as disclosed in US 333, prior to the addition of the secondary pore former polymer, as disclosed in US 449, because there are a limited number of options for combining the four components of a composition. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding claim 10, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses an amount of the secondary pore former polymer is in a range of greater than 0 weight% up to about 15 weight% of a weight of the primary pore former polymer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the addition of a secondary pore former polymer to the composition must necessarily be greater than 0 weight% when present in the composition.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the concentration of the secondary pore former polymer in US 333 in view of US 449 because if the concentration is too low then the secondary pore former polymer may not be effective in assisting polymerization of the composition and if the concentration is too high then it may negatively impact the formed porous material and/or would be a waste of materials/resources and increase cost (“Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical” (see MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A)).).
Regarding claim 11 and claim 12, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 333 in view of US 449 discloses the ceramic mixture is configured as an ink for extrusion-based printing, as recited in claim 11, and discloses the ceramic mixture is configured as a resin for light-based lithography printing, as recited in claim 12 (see rejection of claim 1).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 333 in view of US 449 is substantially identical to the claimed secondary pore former polymer of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 333 in view of US 449 is presumed inherently capable of being ink for extrusion-based printing, as recited in claim 11, and is presumed inherently capable of being resin for light-based lithography printing, as recited in claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed July 27, 2026 have been fully considered.
The indefiniteness rejections have been withdrawn.
The anticipation rejection has been withdrawn.
The obviousness rejections have been maintained and revised in view of the amendments to the claims. The Examiner's remarks to Applicants' arguments are herein incorporated into the rejections presented above. Additional remarks are represented below.
In the response, it was argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify US 333 with the teachings of US 099 because “a composition disclosed in US 333 could meet the rejection's motivation for modification without being modified” (see Response page 10). This argument is deemed unpersuasive.
As noted by Applicant, US 333 discloses an embodiment of a ceramic porous structure that may function as a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter (see Response page 10; see also US 333 paragraph 0141). US 0333 discloses “application of porous ceramic material can range from gas and liquid filtration, catalyst supports, thermal insulators, biomedical application, etc.” (see US 0333 paragraph 0003). The disclosure of US 333 is not limited to solely a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA). US 099 discloses porous materials that are applicable towards the field of filtration or else in the field of firing supports or ceramic igniters, including particulate filters in motor vehicle exhaust lines (see US 099 paragraphs 0001-0002, 0005, 0052).
Enhancing or modifying the formation of pores in a porous body/ceramic material would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Achieving a higher degree or altered porous structure in a ceramic material is an obvious enhancement to one of ordinary skill in the art and this objective is achieved by the combination of prior art. The "desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves" (See MPEP 2144, II).
In the response, it was argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify US 333 with the teachings of US 099 since US 099 is directed towards “a ceramic powder formed into simple shapes by pressing, extrusion or vibration or by molding or casting” and US 333 is directed towards “tuning porosity and density of a ceramic material” (see Response page 10). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. US 099 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. porous/ceramic material and/or method of making a porous/ceramic material. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the disclosure of US 099 in combination with the disclosure of US 333.
It is noted that US 333 discloses that forming of a ceramic structure of various shapes formed by extrusion, milling, molding and/or printing (see US 333 paragraph 0135). US 333 discloses “a porous ceramic material with tunable porosity” (see US 333 paragraph 0019), which “may be tuned by varying the ratio of metal oxide nanoparticles to polymer resin” (see US 333 paragraph 01666) as well as “an inhibitor may tune size of printed features of the 3D structure” (see US 333 paragraph 0169; see also paragraph 0182). Nevertheless, US 333 discloses “Ceramic supports may be produced in arbitrary shape and/or size by casting into molds. In other embodiments, ceramic supports may be produced by additive manufacturing (AM) methods for greater selectivity of morphology and further optimized CO2 absorption performance. Other methods of formation may include extrusion, roll pressing, etc” (see US 333 paragraph 0120; see also paragraphs 0135, 0173).
In the response, it was argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify US 333 with the teachings of US 449 because “a composition disclosed in US 333 could meet the rejection's motivation for modification without being modified” (see Response page 12). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. Enhancing or modifying the formation of pores in a porous body/ceramic material would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Achieving a higher degree or altered porous structure in a ceramic material is an obvious enhancement to one of ordinary skill in the art and this objective is achieved by the combination of prior art. The "desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves" (See MPEP 2144, II).
In the response, it was argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify US 333 with the teachings of US 449 since US 449 is directed towards “being used to form simple shapes such as a hollow fiber, a block, a plate, etc.” and US 333 is directed towards “tuning porosity and density of a ceramic material” (see Response page 12). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. US 449 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. porous/ceramic material and/or method of making a porous/ceramic material. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the disclosure of US 449 in combination with the disclosure of US 333.
It is noted that US 333 discloses that forming of a ceramic structure of various shapes formed by extrusion, milling, molding and/or printing (see US 333 paragraph 0135). US 333 discloses “a porous ceramic material with tunable porosity” (see US 333 paragraph 0019), which “may be tuned by varying the ratio of metal oxide nanoparticles to polymer resin” (see US 333 paragraph 01666) as well as “an inhibitor may tune size of printed features of the 3D structure” (see US 333 paragraph 0169; see also paragraph 0182). Nevertheless, US 333 discloses “Ceramic supports may be produced in arbitrary shape and/or size by casting into molds. In other embodiments, ceramic supports may be produced by additive manufacturing (AM) methods for greater selectivity of morphology and further optimized CO2 absorption performance. Other methods of formation may include extrusion, roll pressing, etc” (see US 333 paragraph 0120; see also paragraphs 0135, 0173).
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
