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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 15-18 and 20 in the reply filed on 3/17/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 41-42, 44, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 41 contains the limitation “wherein the spinel-based composite material comprises micro-crystallization having an average diameter of 0.5 micrometers or less”. The instant specification does not provide support for” wherein the spinel-based composite material comprises micro-crystallization having an average diameter of 0.5 micrometers or less”. The composite material is formed by sintering, see claim 35. All occurrences of the word diameter are in paragraph [0061] of the instant specification. The instant specification discusses the diameter range of R of the starting material powder before sintering (or casting) in paragraph [0061]. Paragraph [0061] is entirely silent regarding the composite material. Paragraph [0061] is entirely silent regarding micro-crystallization or the average diameter of micro-crystallization.
Claim 42 contains the limitation “a crystalline structure comprising predominately aluminum oxide microcrystals”. The instant specification does not provide support for” a crystalline structure comprising predominately aluminum oxide microcrystals”. The instant specification states that “the spinel-based composite material includes a crystalline structure (e.g., the crystalline structure 202) that is rich in aluminum oxide microcrystals” (paragraph [0082]). However rich is not equivalent to predominately.
Claim 44 contains the limitation “wherein the spinel-based powder comprises magnesium oxide, aluminum oxide, and oxygen”. The instant specification does not provide support for” wherein the spinel-based powder comprises magnesium oxide, aluminum oxide, and oxygen”. The instant specification states that “phase diagram 210 that may correspond to a bulk (e.g., a primary component) of the spinel-based composite material 116 and includes compounds containing one or more combinations of magnesium, aluminum, and/or oxygen” (paragraph [0034]). However this is a description of the composite material (after sintering) and not the raw material powder. Additionally, it is noted that oxygen exists as a gas not a powder.
Claim 48 contains the limitation “wherein the spinel-based composite material comprises micro-crystallization having an average diameter of 0.5 micrometers or less”. The instant specification does not provide support for” wherein the spinel-based composite material comprises micro-crystallization having an average diameter of 0.5 micrometers or less”. The composite material is formed by sintering, see claim 42. All occurrences of the word diameter are in paragraph [0061] of the instant specification. The instant specification discusses the diameter range of R of the starting material powder before sintering (or casting) in paragraph [0061]. Paragraph [0061] is entirely silent regarding the composite material. Paragraph [0061] is entirely silent regarding micro-crystallization or the average diameter of micro-crystallization.
Claims 15-18, 20, and 35-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " casting a spinel-based powder to form a nozzle component" in line 2. Claim 15 recites the limitation " sintering the nozzle component" in line 6. The ASM Glossary of Metallurgical and Metalworking Terms defines casting as (1) Metal object cast to the required shape by pouring or injecting liquid metal into a mold, as distinct from one shaped by a mechanical process. (2) Pouring molten metal into a mold to produce an object of desired shape (page 34). The ASM Glossary of Metallurgical and Metalworking Terms defines sintering as the bonding of adjacent surfaces of particles in a mass of powder or a compact by heating and states that sintering strengthens a powder mass and normally produces densification and, in powdered metals, recrystallization (page 210). Casting involves melting metal and then shaping while sintering involves particles or powders. It is unclear how the nozzle component can be sintered once it has been cast. Similarly, Claim 35 recites the limitation " casting a spinel-based powder to form a nozzle component" in line 2. Claim 35 recites the limitation " sintering the nozzle component" in line 4. Claim 42 recites the limitation " casting a spinel-based powder to form a nozzle component" in line 2. Claim 42 recites the limitation " sintering the nozzle component" in line 4. Claims 16-18, 20, 36-41, 43-48 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claims 15, 35, and 42.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (US 20220041508 A1).
Regarding claim 15, in light of the 112(b) rejection above, in order to apply prior art, either casting or sintering will read on the claim, Duan teaches “ceramic materials having high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance, components formed from the same, and methods for producing the same” (which reads upon “a method, comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0009]). Duan teaches that “the ceramic material comprises at least one phase comprising one or more of a sapphirine phase, a cordierite phase, a spinel phase, or an enstatite phase” (which reads upon “casting a spinel-based powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0004]). Duan teaches “forming a ceramic material from a powder” (which reads upon “powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Duan teaches “a semiconductor processing chamber 100 having one or more chamber components that are formed from and/or coated with the ceramic material with high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance described herein” (which reads upon “a chamber of an etch tool as part of a plasma-based etching operation, wherein the gas is used to form a plasma as part of the plasma-based etching operation”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0028]). Duan teaches that “the processing chamber 100 may be a chamber for a plasma etcher or plasma etch reactor, a plasma cleaner, plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or ALD reactors and so forth” (which reads upon “to create a spinel-based composite material that inhibits particles being etched from the nozzle component during the plasma-based etching operation”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0028]). Duan teaches that “the ceramic materials described herein successfully overcome this drawback of current ceramics by simultaneously exhibiting high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance (e.g., to plasmas)” (which reads upon “to create a spinel-based composite material that inhibits particles being etched from the nozzle component during the plasma-based etching operation”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0025]). Duan teaches that “the component is selected from a group consisting of: a heater, an electrostatic chuck, a nozzle, a gas distribution plate, a showerhead, an electrostatic chuck component, a chamber wall, a liner, a liner kit, a gas line, a lid, a chamber lid, a nozzle, a single ring, a processing kit ring, a base, a shield, a plasma screen, a flow equalizer, a cooling base, a chamber viewport, a bellow, a faceplate, and a selectivity modulating device” (which reads upon “to form a nozzle component that is used to inject a gas”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0008]). Duan teaches that “the ceramic material is formed by sintering the composition at a temperature of about 1000° C. to about 1600° C. for a duration of about 2 minutes to about 10 hours” (which reads upon “sintering the nozzle component”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claims 16-17, Duan teaches the method of claim 15 as stated above. Duan teaches that “the sintering is performed using pressless sintering, hot press sintering, hot isostatic press (HIP) sintering, spark plasma sintering (SPS), or any other suitable sintering technique” (paragraph [0053]; pressless sintering reads on pressure-less sintering).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (US 20220041508 A1), as applied to claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 18, Duan teaches the method of claim 15 as stated above. Duan teaches that “the ceramic material is formed by sintering the composition at a temperature of about 1000° C. to about 1600° C. for a duration of about 2 minutes to about 10 hours” (paragraph [0007]). Duan is silent regarding an aluminum oxide rich crystalline structure. The instant specification states that in some implementations, the spinel-based composite material 116 including the single compound includes a matrix (e.g., a crystalline structure) that is rich in aluminum oxide microcrystals, and that in such a case, and as an example, a weight percentage of magnesium oxide within the spinel-based composite material 116 may be included in a range of approximately 27.0% to approximately 28.3% (paragraph [0041]). Duan teaches that “the composition comprises about 60 wt % to 70 wt % of Al2O3, about 25 wt % to 30 wt % MgO, and about 5 wt % to 10 wt % SiO2” (paragraph [0049]). Accordingly Duan teaches a range which encompasses approximately 27.0% to approximately 28.3% MgO. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (sintering), a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the nozzle of the prior art possesses the crystal structure as claimed in the instant claims since the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above) and the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (sintering). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference nozzle, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference nozzle does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 20, Duan teaches the method of claim 15 as stated above. Duan teaches that “the ceramic material is formed by sintering the composition at a temperature of about 1000° C. to about 1600° C. for a duration of about 2 minutes to about 10 hours” (which reads upon “sintering the nozzle component at a temperature greater than approximately 1400 degrees Celsius”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0007]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of greater than approximately 1400 degrees Celsius lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art of about 1000° C. to about 1600° C. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Claims 35-40 and 42-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (US 20220041508 A1).
Regarding claim 35, in light of the 112(b) rejection above, in order to apply prior art, either casting or sintering will read on the claim, Duan teaches “ceramic materials having high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance, components formed from the same, and methods for producing the same” (which reads upon “a method, comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0009]). Duan teaches that “the ceramic material comprises at least one phase comprising one or more of a sapphirine phase, a cordierite phase, a spinel phase, or an enstatite phase” (which reads upon “casting a spinel-based powder, to form a spinel-based composite material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0004]). Duan teaches “forming a ceramic material from a powder” (which reads upon “powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Duan teaches “a semiconductor processing chamber 100 having one or more chamber components that are formed from and/or coated with the ceramic material with high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance described herein” (which reads upon “a chamber of an etch tool as part of a plasma-based etching operation”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0028]). Duan teaches that “the processing chamber 100 may be a chamber for a plasma etcher or plasma etch reactor, a plasma cleaner, plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or ALD reactors and so forth” (paragraph [0028]). Duan teaches that “the ceramic materials described herein successfully overcome this drawback of current ceramics by simultaneously exhibiting high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance (e.g., to plasmas)” (paragraph [0025]). Duan teaches that “the component is selected from a group consisting of: a heater, an electrostatic chuck, a nozzle, a gas distribution plate, a showerhead, an electrostatic chuck component, a chamber wall, a liner, a liner kit, a gas line, a lid, a chamber lid, a nozzle, a single ring, a processing kit ring, a base, a shield, a plasma screen, a flow equalizer, a cooling base, a chamber viewport, a bellow, a faceplate, and a selectivity modulating device” (which reads upon “to form a nozzle component that is used to inject a gas”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0008]). Duan teaches that “the ceramic material is formed by sintering the composition at a temperature of about 1000° C. to about 1600° C. for a duration of about 2 minutes to about 10 hours” (which reads upon “sintering the nozzle component at a temperature greater than approximately 1400 degrees Celsius”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0007]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of greater than approximately 1400 degrees Celsius lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art of about 1000° C. to about 1600° C. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 36-37, Duan teaches the method of claim 35 as stated above. Duan teaches that “the sintering is performed using pressless sintering, hot press sintering, hot isostatic press (HIP) sintering, spark plasma sintering (SPS), or any other suitable sintering technique” (paragraph [0053]; pressless sintering reads on pressure-less sintering).
Regarding claim 38, Duan teaches the method of claim 35 as stated above. Duan teaches that the relative density is ≥ 99% (Table 2).
Regarding claim 39, Duan teaches the method of claim 35 as stated above. Duan teaches that “the resulting ceramic material may comprise at least one phase, such as a sapphirine phase, a cordierite phase, a spinel phase, or an enstatite phase” (paragraph [0054]; spinel phase reads on a crystalline spinel structure).
Regarding claim 40, Duan teaches the method of claim 35 as stated above. Duan teaches that “the resulting ceramic material may comprise at least one phase, such as a sapphirine phase, a cordierite phase, a spinel phase, or an enstatite phase” (paragraph [0054]). Duan teaches that “the composition comprises about 60 wt % to 70 wt % of Al2O3, about 25 wt % to 30 wt % MgO, and about 5 wt % to 10 wt % SiO2” (paragraph [0049]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of approximately 27% to approximately 28.3% lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art of about 25 wt % to 30 wt %. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 42, in light of the 112(b) rejection above, in order to apply prior art, either casting or sintering will read on the claim, Duan teaches “ceramic materials having high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance, components formed from the same, and methods for producing the same” (which reads upon “a method, comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0009]). Duan teaches that “the ceramic material comprises at least one phase comprising one or more of a sapphirine phase, a cordierite phase, a spinel phase, or an enstatite phase” (which reads upon “casting a spinel-based powder, to form a spinel-based composite material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0004]). Duan teaches “forming a ceramic material from a powder” (which reads upon “powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Duan teaches “a semiconductor processing chamber 100 having one or more chamber components that are formed from and/or coated with the ceramic material with high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance described herein” (which reads upon “a chamber of an etch tool as part of a plasma-based etching operation”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0028]). Duan teaches that “the processing chamber 100 may be a chamber for a plasma etcher or plasma etch reactor, a plasma cleaner, plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or ALD reactors and so forth” (paragraph [0028]). Duan teaches that “the ceramic materials described herein successfully overcome this drawback of current ceramics by simultaneously exhibiting high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance (e.g., to plasmas)” (paragraph [0025]). Duan teaches that “the component is selected from a group consisting of: a heater, an electrostatic chuck, a nozzle, a gas distribution plate, a showerhead, an electrostatic chuck component, a chamber wall, a liner, a liner kit, a gas line, a lid, a chamber lid, a nozzle, a single ring, a processing kit ring, a base, a shield, a plasma screen, a flow equalizer, a cooling base, a chamber viewport, a bellow, a faceplate, and a selectivity modulating device” (which reads upon “to form a nozzle component that is used to inject a gas”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0008]). Duan teaches that “the ceramic material is formed by sintering the composition at a temperature of about 1000° C. to about 1600° C. for a duration of about 2 minutes to about 10 hours” (which reads upon “sintering the nozzle component to form a spinel-based composite material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0007]). Duan is silent regarding a crystalline structure comprising predominately aluminum oxide microcrystals. The instant specification states that in some implementations, the spinel-based composite material 116 including the single compound includes a matrix (e.g., a crystalline structure) that is rich in aluminum oxide microcrystals, and that in such a case, and as an example, a weight percentage of magnesium oxide within the spinel-based composite material 116 may be included in a range of approximately 27.0% to approximately 28.3% (paragraph [0041]). Duan teaches that “the composition comprises about 60 wt % to 70 wt % of Al2O3, about 25 wt % to 30 wt % MgO, and about 5 wt % to 10 wt % SiO2” (paragraph [0049]). Accordingly Duan teaches a range which encompasses approximately 27.0% to approximately 28.3% MgO. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (sintering), a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the nozzle of the prior art possesses the crystal structure as claimed in the instant claims since the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above) and the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (sintering). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference nozzle, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference nozzle does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 43, Duan teaches the method of claim 42 as stated above. Duan teaches that the relative density is ≥ 99% (Table 2).
Regarding claim 44, Duan teaches the method of claim 42 as stated above. For the purposes of applying art, the oxygen in the oxides of the powder will read on the oxygen. Duan teaches that “the composition comprises about 60 wt % to 70 wt % of Al2O3, about 25 wt % to 30 wt % MgO, and about 5 wt % to 10 wt % SiO2” (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claims 45-47, modified Duan teaches the method of claim 42 as stated above. Duan teaches that the main phase of the spinel is MgAl2O4 (Table 1). MgAl2O4 is a region of a magnesium-aluminum-oxygen phase diagram.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41 and 48 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the 112(a) and (b) rejections are overcome. Duan teaches that the grain size has an average of 5.0 µm with a max/min of ( 5.4 / 0.4 µm ). Table 2. Duan is silent regarding micro-crystallization having an average diameter of 0.5 micrometers or less.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanaka et al. (US 20140283995 A1). Tanaka teaches a nozzle which is a “ceramic sintered body containing magnesium aluminate (MgAl2O4), that is, spinel, as a primary component” (paragraph [0020]).
Ganesh, A review on magnesium aluminate (MgAl2O4) spinel: synthesis, processing and applications, International Materials Reviews 2013 VOL 58 NO 2, pages 63-112. Ganesh teaches that “although, a great number of papers deal with MAS in the literature, none of them present together the complete information pertaining to the fundamentals (properties, crystal structure and phase diagram), the problems of volume expansion associated with MAS phase formation from alumina and magnesia, the utility of single or double stage sintering processes, the methods available to reduce the processing cost of MAS products, the various routes employed for the Preparation of MAS powders, single crystals, whiskers And thin films, the available powder consolidation(i.e. processing) techniques, the effects of starting raw materials, chemical composition (i.e. non-stoichiometry), defect reactions, impurities/sintering aids, processing routes, etc., on densification behaviour of the powder, the advanced spectral characteristics of the powders, the optical, mechanical, dielectric, thermal and magnetic properties of sintered materials, the applications, etc.” (page 64). Ganesh teaches that “this review article is an attempt to fill this gap” (page 63). Ganesh teaches that “the MgO–Al2O3 phase diagram is shown in Fig. 2” (page 65 and FIG. 2). Ganesh teaches that “MgAl2O4 spinel possesses a very wide range of stoichiometry and is the only phase that forms at temperatures up to 1600 C. At this temperature, the solid solubility of MgO and Al2O3 in MAS is estimated to be 2 and 6% respectively” (page 65).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights