DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species F13 (aluminum) and Species G2 (carbonate) in the reply filed on December 3, 2025 is acknowledged. The other, non-elected species in Species Groups F and G are withdrawn from consideration.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejections made in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of the abandonment of Application No. 17/312,319.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed July 17, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 13, 29, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hao (Hao, et al. Surf. And Coat. Tech. 2017, vol. 326A, p. 200-206 and graphical abstract).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 10, 13, and 29, Hao teaches a composition comprising a porous ceramic material comprising an interconnected network of ceramic in contact with an aluminum substrate (i.e. aluminum is the "primary metal") (Abstract; Graphical Abstract; Figs. 2, 8). The porous ceramic material comprises a layered double hydroxide (“LDH”) of aluminum (i.e. the "primary metal" of the substrate) and magnesium (i.e. "second metal" that is different from the "primary metal" and is an alkali earth metal), which is introduced during deposition of the ceramic material on the substrate (p. 202, left and right col.). As Hao makes no disclosure of a binder, the porous ceramic material is presumed to be binderless. At least some of the pores of the porous ceramic material are at least partially filled with a silica (i.e. a "second ceramic material" that is different in composition from the ceramic in the interconnected network of ceramic) (Abstract; p. 203, left col.).
The instant requirement that the claimed composition includes a “pore size distribution that varies with distance from the substrate” only requires that at least some pores, including as few as two pores, have at least somewhat, regardless of how marginally small, different sizes at different distances from the substrate because no degree or direction (i.e. increasing or decreasing) of variation or particular set or number of pores are included in the recitation. Although Hao does not explicitly discuss a pore size distribution that varies with distance from the substrate, each of the micrographs showing the LDH film show an irregular pore structure with a variety of different pore sizes, with at least some smaller pore openings located deeper in the porous ceramic than its upper, exterior surface (Figs. 2a, 8c and 8d). The graphical abstract for the article also shows that the ceramic film is made up of platelet structures having narrower tops and bottoms that stand on the substrate (Graphical Abstract). As shown in the graphical abstract, the spaces, or pores, between at least some adjacent platelets nearest the substrate and furthest from the substrate are larger than at least some spaces, or pores, between the adjacent platelets at their widest points (Graphical Abstract). As such, Hao depicts a pore distribution that varies with distance from the substrate. Additionally, in view of these depictions, it is more likely than not that there is at least some variation in pore size and, therefore, a pore size distribution, within the porous ceramic material, including with the pore sizes varying with distance from the substrate.
Regarding claim 7, as shown in Figures 2 and 8, Hao's porous ceramic material comprises many interconnected platelets of ceramic material that extend across the substrate surface (Fig. 1). As no particular limitations are placed on the size or spacing between "interconnected networks", any arbitrarily-selected subset of interconnected platelets, even a subset that is adjoined to another interconnected subset, may itself be considered an "interconnected network of ceramic". Therefore, Hao's composition comprises many different sets of interconnected platelets that form many (i.e. "a plurality") interconnected networks of ceramic in contact with the substrate.
Regarding claim 38, Hao’s binderless, porous ceramic material comprises an LDH with intercalated carbonate anions (p. 203, right col.).
Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng (CN 109023299A), the text of which is cited according to an English language translation. Alternatively, claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zheng. Evidence for claim 13 is presented by Pekguleryuz (Pekguleryuz, P., Advances in Wrought Magnesium Alloys, 2012, p. 3-62).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 29, Zheng teaches a composition comprising a porous ceramic material comprising an interconnected network of ceramic in contact with a magnesium alloy substrate (i.e. magnesium is the "primary metal") (Abstract; par. 12, 15, 18, 22-23, 53, 55-62; Fig. 1). The porous ceramic material comprises magnesium (i.e. the "primary metal" of the substrate and an alkaline earth metal) and aluminum (i.e. "second metal" that is different from the "primary metal") that is introduced during deposition of the ceramic material on the substrate (par. 23). As Zheng makes no disclosure of a binder, the porous ceramic material is presumed to be binderless. At least some of the pores of the porous ceramic material are at least partially filled with an alumina (i.e. a "second ceramic material" that is different in composition from the ceramic in the interconnected network of ceramic) (par. 28-29, 64, 155).
The instant requirement that the claimed composition includes a “pore size distribution that varies with distance from the substrate” only requires that at least some pores, including as few as two pores, have at least somewhat, regardless of how marginally small, different sizes at different distances from the substrate because no degree or direction (i.e. increasing or decreasing) of variation or particular set or number of pores are included in the recitation. Although Zheng does not explicitly discuss a pore size distribution that varies with distance from the substrate, each of the micrographs showing the porous ceramic film show an irregular pore structure with a variety of different pore sizes, with at least some smaller pore openings located deeper in the porous ceramic than its upper, exterior surface (Fig. 1). Additionally, in view of these depictions, it is more likely than not that there is at least some variation in pore size and, therefore, a pore size distribution, within the porous ceramic material, including with the pore sizes varying with distance from the substrate.
The claim requirement that the primary metal is “incorporated from the substrate” is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the recited processing steps, but rather by the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. As no limitations regarding how the primary metal is incorporated from the substrate (e.g. grown as a conversion coating, scraped from the substrate and redeposited as a slurry, etc.), the requirement that the metal is “incorporated from the substrate” conveys little or no specific structure other than that the ceramic coating comprise a metal that is of the same type as a metal that is present in the substrate. Zheng's porous ceramic, which includes a metal of the same type as a metal in the substrate, meets the claim requirement because it has the limited structure that is implied by the claim.
Regarding claims 10 and 38, Zheng's binderless, porous ceramic material comprises a layered double hydroxide with intercalated carbonate anions (Abstract; par. 6, 12, 52, 69). Therefore, Zheng's binderless porous ceramic includes carbonate and hydroxide as "anionic components".
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 31, Zheng meets the limitations of claims 7, 13, and 31 for the reasons discussed in the previous Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding 4, the teachings of Hao differ from the current invention in that the thickness of his binderless, porous ceramic material layer comprising an interconnected network of ceramic is not disclosed. However, as no criticality has been established and as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a layer thickness would necessarily have to be selected, the recited thickness range is a prima facie obvious selection of size or dimension that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art and it would have been obvious to select an appropriate thickness according to the requirements of the intended application. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, as applied to claim 1 above, for the reasons discussed in the previous Office Action.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng alone or in view of Schlesinger (US PG Pub. No. 2013/0209698) for the reasons discussed in the previous Office Action.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Brockway (WO 2018/053453 A1), as evidenced by Hao. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Brockway and, optionally, Schlesinger, as evidenced by Hao.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 29, 31, and 34, as discussed above and in the previous Office Action, Zheng and, optionally, Schlesinger teach or render obvious a composition having a structure that is considered herein to meet the requirements of claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 29, 31, and 34.
As also noted above, Zheng does not teach that the primary metal in his porous ceramic coating is sourced from the substrate, which might be considered a difference from the current invention. However, as also discussed above, Zheng does teach that the coating is a layered double hydroxide (“LDH”) of magnesium and aluminum with intercalated carbonate anions that is intended to enhance the corrosion resistance of the underlying substrate. Brockway further teaches a method of making LDH coatings, which may comprise magnesium, aluminum, and intercalated carbonate anions between layers, that forms the coating in situ while sourcing a primary metal from the underlying substrate (par. 12, 47, 57, 58, 65, 68). Brockway’s LDH coatings are nanostructured layers including interspersed platelike structures that provide an increased surface area, that enhance the adhesion of other coatings, and that provide corrosion resistance to the underlying substrate (par. 17, 58, 99, 101). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Brockway’s coating method to form the LDH coating on Zheng’s substrate because Brockway’s method can be used to make a LDH coating of the same composition as disclosed by Zheng that offers increased surface area, enhanced adhesion, and improved corrosion resistance.
As discussed above and evidenced by Hao, Mg-Al LDH coatings have at least some variation in pore size distribution with distance from a substrate. Furthermore, given that Brockway teaches that coating is made up of many interspersed platelike nanostructures (par. 58), and Brockway makes no disclosure of the plates being perfectly aligned, it is more likely than not that there is at least some variation in pore size and, therefore, a pore size distribution, within the porous ceramic material, including with the pore sizes varying with distance from the substrate. Therefore, the porous ceramic material of Zhen, Brockway, and, optionally, Schlessinger, meets the pore size distribution requirements of claims 1 and 34.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 18, 20-22, 24, 26, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rush (US PG Pub. No. 2010/0294475). Evidence for claim 26 is provided by The Engineering Toolbox (The Engineering Toolbox, "Solids-Densities: Densities of Selected Solids", 2009, p. 1-12).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 10, 13, and 29-31, Rush teaches a composition including a porous ceramic material comprising an interconnected network of ceramic, such as a ceramic containing aluminum (i.e. a "primary metal" of the substrate) and/or an alkaline earth metal (i.e. a "second metal") such as magnesium in contact with a substrate, which may be an aluminum alloy (i.e. the "primary metal" of the substrate is aluminum) (par. 27, 32, 33, 34, 61, 64).
Although Rush does not explicitly refer to a product with a porous layer including an interconnected network as being a "binderless ceramic material", which might be considered a difference from the current invention, Rush does teach that a binder is optional for the slurries used to form such layers (par. 80). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to omit a binder from a porous ceramic layer comprising an interconnected network of ceramic in Rush's product because Rush explicitly teaches that a binder is optional, thereby making clear that the binder may be omitted.
The teachings of Rush might be considered to further differ from the current invention in that the pores of his ceramic material are not explicitly taught to be partially or completely filled with a second ceramic material of a different type from the binderless, porous ceramic that includes a primary metal that is the same type of metal as the second metal of the binderless, porous ceramic. Rush also does not explicitly teach to use the recited combination of "primary" and "second metals" in the substrate and ceramic materials or to combine different types of "anionic components" as claimed. However, Rush does teach that his porous ceramic layer can be made by stacking a layers of different-sized particles atop one another (par. 82), with one configuration including a layer of smaller spherical particles (52) over top of a layer of larger spherical particles (50) (Fig. 2C). As shown in Figure 2, the porous ceramic material and its interface between the two layers of particles includes gradients of particle and pore sizes.
As Rush teaches that the layers are applied as a slurry and then allowed to dry (par. 82), each layer conforms to the surface to which it is applied. Therefore, as the layer with smaller particles is applied atop the layer with larger particles, which is shown to have an uneven surface due to gaps between the curved upper regions of the larger particles and which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have such a configuration because it is free of a binder, at least some of the smaller particles at least partially fill the voids/pores on the surface of the larger-particle layer (i.e. the "binderless, porous ceramic material"). Rush also teaches that when a bimodal distribution of particles is used, the smaller particles have an average size range of 10 to 10,000 nm and the larger particles have an average size range of 10,001 to 100,000 nm (par. 60). As such, Rush renders obvious a structure wherein the smaller particles can be as little as 1/10000 of the size of the larger particles, which would result in at least some portion of the smaller particles at least partially filling pores between the larger particles. Rush also teaches that pore sizes decrease with decreasing particle sizes (par. 46). Therefore, the ceramic material having a gradient of particle sizes with distance from the substrate also includes a pore distribution that varies with distance from the substrate.
Rush further teaches that his porous layer can be made from various types of ceramics, including various types of metal oxides and alkaline earth metal stannates and that the different types of ceramics can be combined (par. 63). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a porous layer for Rush's product including a binderless layer of larger spherical particles from a ceramic material comprising aluminum and an alkaline earth metal, e.g. magnesium aluminate, as well as another type of ceramic that includes a different type of "anionic component", such as aluminum or magnesium silicate, that is coated by a layer of smaller spherical particles of a different type of ceramic, e.g. a magnesium stannate, of the smaller particle size range because Rush teaches that doing so is appropriate and in order to create a porous layer with the desired/required mass transfer, heat transfer, and properties. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the product to have an aluminum alloy substrate because Rush explicitly teaches doing so to be appropriate. Therefore, Rush renders obvious a binderless, porous ceramic layer/material (i.e. "composition") comprising an interconnected network that is in contact with a substrate and that comprises pores that are at least partially filled with a second ceramic, wherein the binderless, porous ceramic material comprising an interconnected network includes a metal that is the same as the primary metal of the substrate, a second metal, and more than one type of "anionic components" including carbonate, and wherein the second ceramic material has a primary metal that is the same type as the second metal of the porous ceramic material in the interconnected network.
The claim requirement that the primary metal is “incorporated from the substrate” is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the recited processing steps, but rather by the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. As no limitations regarding how the primary metal is incorporated from the substrate (e.g. grown as a conversion coating, scraped from the substrate and redeposited as a slurry, etc.), the requirement that the metal is “incorporated from the substrate” conveys little or no specific structure other than that the ceramic coating comprise a metal element that is of the same type as a metal that is present in the substrate. Rush's porous ceramic, which includes a metal of the same type as a metal in the substrate, meets the claim requirement because it has the limited structure that is implied by the claim.
Regarding claim 32, as discussed above, Rush teaches to coat slurries of smaller ceramic particles (i.e. the "second ceramic material"), which may be magnesium stannate, onto porous ceramic material layers comprising an interconnected network of ceramic, which may be an aluminum-containing ceramic, which results in at least some of the interstitial pores at the surface of the binderless, porous ceramic material layer being at least partially filled with particles of the second ceramic material. Figure 3 also shows demonstrates that the pores at the surface of a lower, "binderless, porous ceramic material" layer (unlabeled) decrease in size from the layer's outmost surface inwardly and that the amount of contact between the upper, "second ceramic" particles (204) and the lower particles also decreases as the pore sizes decrease (Fig. 3). The figure also shows that the content of second ceramic material within the overall structure decreases as the contact between the two types of particles decreases. Therefore, there is a gradient in the relative quantities of "second ceramic" material and the "binderless, porous ceramic material", which includes aluminum, at the interface between the two layers.
Regarding claims 4, 7, 9, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, and, 26, Rush teaches or renders obvious the limitations of claims 4, 7, 9, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 26 for the reasons discussed in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Zheng does not meet the claim requirements because his porous ceramic coating is formed by applying a sol-like coating material including the primary metal, rather than sourcing the metal from the substrate. To support this argument, Applicant has also asserted that Zheng’s sol-like coating would have different properties and a more uniform porosity due to a distribution of applied spherical particles, aggregates, and agglomerates from the sol. Applicant has also pointed out that Zhen does not disclose a variation in pore size, which Applicant asserts arises from the claimed deposition method and which is now claimed. However, Applicant has presented no evidence to support the assertion that Zheng’s coating is made up of spherical particles or has different properties from that of the instant claims. To the contrary, Zheng’s Figure 1 shows a layered double hydroxide (“LDH”) coating made up of platelets (i.e. which are not spherical) that is very similar in appearance to the LDH coating disclosed by Hao (Fig. 2a), which includes a primary metal sourced from its substrate. Also, claim 1 does not include limitations about properties of the claimed porous ceramic material.
With respect to pore size distribution, it is noted that the claimed requirement that the composition includes a “pore size distribution that varies with distance from the substrate” only requires that at least some pores, including as few as two pores, have at least somewhat, regardless of how marginally small, different sizes at different distances from the substrate because no degree or direction (i.e. increasing or decreasing) of variation, or particular set or number of pores are included in the recitation. Zheng’s product meets this requirement for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant has further argued that Rush does not meet the claim requirements because his coating is formed by applying a slurry of the coating components rather than sourcing a metal from the substrate. To support this argument, Applicant has also pointed to Rush’s spherical particles as evidence that his coating would have a different structure from one that included a metal sourced from the substrate. However, as discussed above, the claim requirement that the primary metal is “incorporated from the substrate” is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the recited processing steps, but rather by the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. As no limitations regarding how the primary metal is incorporated from the substrate (e.g. grown as a conversion coating, scraped from the substrate and redeposited as a slurry, etc.), the requirement that the metal is “incorporated from the substrate” conveys little or no specific structure other than that the ceramic coating comprise a metal element that is of the same type as a metal that is present in the substrate. The limitation does not exclude the coating from comprising spherical particles, and no particle shapes, which could exclude spherical particles, are claimed. Rush's porous ceramic, which includes a metal of the same type as a metal in the substrate, meets the claim requirement because it has the limited structure that is implied by the claim limitation.
Applicant has further argued that Rush does not teach a variation in pore size, as claimed. However, as discussed above, Rush’s coating is made up of layers of different-sized particles. As evidenced by his disclosure that pore size varies with particle size (par. 46), the coating rendered obvious by Rush has pore sizes that vary with distance from the substrate.
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 JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784