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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 06/01/2026. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is currently amended and Claims 2-16 are as originally filed.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 2 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Newkirk et al. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newkirk et al (US 4,868,143).
Newkirk et al teaches making ceramic bodies as represented below in the annotated drawing with respect to Claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
245
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The ceramic body reads on the claimed “firing jig.” The first mounting surface mounts the ceramic formed body directly and is adjacent to the second mounting surface. The first mounting surface can be solid or liquid (column 6, line 11) and can be in the form of particulates (column 10, line 41-43; Examples 3 and 5). Newkirk et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 3, the “partition plate” is taught by the vertical side of the crucible 18.
Regarding Claim 7, the wall surface is taught by the second mounting surface.
Further regarding Claim 14, Newkirk et al teaches the claimed method and teaches heating and impregnating (column 3, lines 50-59; column 5, lines 42-50).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claim 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newkirk et al as applied to claims 1 and 14 above.
Newkirk et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Newkirk et al teaches the crucible angle is less than 90° but does not recite the angle of the crucible is 5° to 85° as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the angle in Newkirk et al to at least overlap the claimed range, since a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in this case the angle of the vertical side of the crucible, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B.
Regarding Claim 16, Newkirk et al teaches porosity depends on temperature, time, dopants, and type of parent metal (column 5, line 65 to column 6, line 2) but does not teach 30% porosity or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the porosity in Newkirk et al to at least overlap the claimed range, since a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in this case the range of porosity including zero, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8-12, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding Claims 4-6, Newkirk et al does not suggest the ceramic has a hollow portion as claimed. Regarding Claim 8, Newkirk et al does not suggest the second mounting surface (crucible) between a wall surface and the first mounting surface as claimed. Regarding Claim 9, Newkirk et al does not suggest a separate wall surface from the second mounting surface as claimed. Regarding Claim 10, Newkirk et al does not teach at least 80% by mass of the substances recited. Newkirk et al teaches more of the first mounting surface (see Examples). Regarding Claim 12, Newkirk et al does not suggest a honeycomb structure as recited. Regarding Claim 13, Newkirk et al does not teach a ceramic containing silicon carbide and a metal of metallic silicon. Regarding Claim 15, Newkirk et al does not suggest a heat exchanger.
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 Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:00 am to 3:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (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 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
