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 § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brun et al (US 5,205,970; hereafter Brun).
Claim 1: Brun teaches a method for manufacturing a metal-impregnated ceramic fired body, (See, for example, abstract, Figures, col 2 lines 31-35, col 3 lines 28-62, and Example 1) comprising:
a preparation step 1 for a first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body, comprising impregnating a ceramic formed body with a metal (molten infiltrant, such as silicon, or silicon alloy) by heating the ceramic formed body and the metal to a melting point of the metal or higher (see, for example, col 1 lines 50-col 2 line 3, col 5 lines 17-44, col 6 lines 57-67, abstract, figs, Example 1);
followed by cooling the first metal impregnated ceramic fired body to room temperature (see, for example, col 6 lines 1-8, Example1 col 8 lines 15-20);
and a preparation step 2 for a second metal-impregnated ceramic fired body having a lower metal impregnation amount than the first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body, comprising removing (such as via wicking) a part of the metal impregnated in the first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body by reheating the first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body to the melting point of the metal or higher to form the metal-impregnated ceramic fired body (See, for example, col 2 lines 23-30, example 1).
Claim 2: Brun further teaches wherein the first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body comprises one or two or more protrusions (droplets 21) formed by the metal protruding on a surface (See, for example, Fig 2, col 6 lines 63-col 7 line 13).
Claim 4: Brun further teaches wherein a pressure of an ambient gas during the reheating in the preparation step 2 is lower than a pressure of the ambient gas during the heating in the preparation step 1 (See, for example, col 6 lines 9-24 wherein the infiltration is taught to be performed under hydrogen or carbon monoxide, and col 8 lines 15-25, wherein the subsequent step 2 is taught to be performed in vacuum; which possesses a pressure lower than the environment that additionally at least comprises a pressure of hydrogen or carbon monoxide).
Claims 5-6: Brun further teaches wherein the preparation step 2 comprises reheating the first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body while bringing a porous absorbent (porous bodies, porous carbon felt) into contact with the first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body, thereby causing the absorbent to absorb the metal impregnated in the first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body (see, for example, figures, col 2 lines 18-30, col 5 lines 45-64).
Claim 7: Brun further teaches wherein the reheating in the preparation step 2 is performed with the absorbent placed on or under the first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body (see, for example, figures, col 2 lines 18-30, col 5 lines 45-64, example).
Claim 8: Brun further teaches wherein the absorbent contains 80% by mass or more in total of carbon (such as porous carbon cloth or carbon felt) (See, for example, col 5 lines 45-64).
Claim 10: Brun further teaches wherein the ceramic formed body contains silicon carbide, and the metal contains metallic silicon (see, for example, col 3 line45-48, and col 1 lines 64-66).
Claim 11: Brun further teaches wherein the metal-impregnated ceramic fired body is a heat exchanger (see, for example, col 4 lines 35-55, claims, wherein the resulting SiC / Me composites are made any near net shape, and naturally possess a degree of thermal conductivity intrinsic to the chemistry, thus depending on their orientation when placed in service, they are capable of operation as a heat exchanger, thus can be considered a heat exchanger).
Claim 12: Brun further teaches wherein the final metal-impregnated ceramic fired body are fully dense, (thus ~0%) (see, for example, col 1 lines 27-32, col 2 lines 18-26; wherein complete infiltration and filling of porosity is achieved).
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.
Claim 3: Brun further teaches wherein the maximum temperature during the heating in the preparation step 1 is preferably 1410-1600oC (See, for example, col 6 lines 58-68). Brun further teaches wherein the reheating is performed at a “temperature where the infiltrant is molten” (See, for example, col 7 lines 4-12; such a teaching is suggestive of temperature at or above the melting point of the alloy). Although no explicit teaching is present wherein the reheating max temperature is higher than the max temperature of heating, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated such a higher max reheating temperature since such a temperature would readily ensure a sufficient temperature where the infiltrant is molten and since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al (US 2008/0242535; hereafter Liu).
Claim 9: Brun teaches the method of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the metal-impregnated ceramic fired body comprises silicon carbide, and which can be formed by variety of preform shaping method to produce essentially any near net shape, (see, for example, abstract, col 4 lines 35-55). But it is silent as to particular structure for particular applications. Liu teaches a method of implanting SiC into honeycomb bodies (See, for example, abstract, figures). Liu further teaches the conventionality of honeycomb structures possessing an outer peripheral wall and partition walls disposed on an inner peripheral side of the outer peripheral wall to partition a plurality of cells forming flow paths therethrough (See, for example, [0001-0006], Fig 1-5). Liu further teaches wherein SiC is particularly desirable material for honeycomb substrates as it exhibits significantly high thermal conductivity as well as high volumetric heat capacity that effective reduce the magnitude of thermal gradients during regeneration in a DPF ceramic honeycomb substrate, and wherein silicon carbide is also chemically stable and inert, and mechanically strong when bonded (see, for example, [0005]). Liu teaches that SiC honeycombs can predictably be formed by melt impregnation processes (like those taught by Brun) (see, for example, [0055]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the ceramic formed body comprising a honeycomb structure portion having an outer peripheral wall and partition walls disposed on an inner peripheral side of the outer peripheral wall and partitioning a plurality of cells forming flow paths from one end surface to another end surface since honeycomb shapes are well known in the art, and implantation of SiC as the honeycomb material particularly lends desirable properties to such structures including significantly high thermal conductivity as well as high volumetric heat capacity that effective reduce the magnitude of thermal gradients during regeneration in a DPF ceramic honeycomb substrate, as well as chemical stability, inertness, and mechanical strength when bonded, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al (US 5,509,555; hereafter Chiang).
Claim 1: Chiang teaches a method for manufacturing a metal-impregnated ceramic fired body, (See, for example, abstract, Figures, col 3 lines 1-25, col 4 lines 38-54) comprising:
a preparation step 1 for a first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body, comprising impregnating a ceramic formed body with a metal (such as silicon alloy melted liquid infiltrant) by heating the ceramic formed body and the metal to a melting point of the metal or higher (such as 1425oC) (see, for example, col 3 lines 25-68, abstract, figs, Example 1);
followed by cooling the first metal impregnated ceramic fired body (see, for example, col 4 lines 12-25; wherein unreacted solid infiltrant alloy remaining on the reacted preform can be removed by heating. As it states it as solid, it must have been cooled to at least sub melting temperatures for it to have solidified). Although not explicitly teaching cooling specifically to room temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have incorporated room temperature as the target cooling temperature since such a temperature is readily accessible and naturally occurring, would allow for handling by hand without fear of burning, and since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
and a preparation step 2 for a second metal-impregnated ceramic fired body having a lower metal impregnation amount than the first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body, comprising removing (such as via evaporation) a part of the metal impregnated in the first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body by reheating the first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body to the melting point of the metal or higher to form the metal-impregnated ceramic fired body (See, for example, col 4 lines 12-26)).
Claim 2: Chiang further teaches wherein the first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body comprises one or two or more protrusions formed by the metal protruding on a surface (See, for example, col 4 lines 12-26). Chiang teaches wherein on the first metal-impregnated ceramic fired body there exists excess remaining unreacted alloy, specifically on the surface, if such an excess is uniform, it would read on one protrusion; if not, it would read on two or more protrusions).
Claim 4: Chiang further teaches wherein a pressure of an ambient gas during the reheating in the preparation step 2 is lower than a pressure of the ambient gas during the heating in the preparation step 1 (See, for example, col 1 line 65-col 2 line 5 wherein the infiltration is taught to be performed without pressurizing, and col 2 lines 59-63, wherein Chiang defines spontaneous infiltration as infiltration without need of pressure or vacuum, thus ambient pressure, Fig 1 and col 3 lines 47-51 wherein the samples are taught to be formed via spontaneous infiltration, and col 4 lines 13-25, wherein the subsequent step 2 is taught to be performed in vacuum; which possesses a pressure lower than ambience).
Claim 10: Chiang further teaches wherein the ceramic formed body contains silicon carbide, and the metal contains metallic silicon (see, for example, col 3 lines 1-32).
Claim 11: Chaing further teaches wherein the metal-impregnated ceramic fired body is a heat exchanger (see, for example, col 1 lines 15-62, claims, wherein the resulting SiC / Me composites are made any near net shape, and naturally possess a degree of thermal conductivity intrinsic to the chemistry, thus depending on their orientation when placed in service, they are capable of operation as a heat exchanger, thus can be considered a heat exchanger).
Claim 12: Chiang further teaches wherein the final metal-impregnated ceramic fired body are fully dense, with no observable porosity (thus ~0%) (see, for example, example 2).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taylor (US 2010/0046172; hereafter Taylor).
Claim 9: Chiang teaches the method of claim 1 above, and further teaches where application areas of the technology include electronic packaging (see, for example, col 5 lines 40-50). But Chiang is silent as to shape of such electronic packaging components so it does not explicitly teach the body comprises a honeycomb structure as claimed. Taylor teaches a method of making electronic packaging (See, for example, abstract). Taylor further teaches further teaches its heat exchanger comprises a honeycomb structure portion having an outer peripheral wall and partition walls disposed on an inner peripheral side of the outer peripheral wall and partitioning a plurality of cells forming flow paths from one end surface to another end surface which increases the footprint of the opening and reduces the impact to the mechanical strength of the housing by the array of openings (See, for example, [0008], [0021], figures). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a honeycomb structure portion having an outer peripheral wall and partition walls disposed on an inner peripheral side of the outer peripheral wall and partitioning a plurality of cells forming flow paths from one end surface to another end surface for the electronics packaging material since it would predictably increase the footprint of the opening and reduce the impact to the mechanical strength of the housing by the array of openings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims with respect to the previously applied 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive; therefore they have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 requiring an intermediate cooling to room temperature step, filed 7/25/25, have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1-2, 5-8, and 10-12 over Park and the 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1-2, 4, and 10-12 of Chiang. Therefore, these rejections has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brun and additionally by reworking the rejection of Chiang as an obviousness-type 35 USC 103 rejection as described above.
The examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument (7/25/25 pg 11 of remarks) that “Since Chiang does not disclose cooling it at all, it is understood that the infiltration and removal are performed continuously.” As described in the rejection of claim 1 over Chiang above, Chiang explicitly states the “unreacted liquid infiltrant alloy…can be in liquid or solid form” (col 4 lines 12-24). As these two alternatives (liquid or solid) are explicitly articulated, the liquid route may align with applicants arguments, but the “solid” alternative cannot, and would in fact require cooling to at least sub melting temperatures for it to have solidified. Thus the examiner maintains that reliance upon Chiang in the applied 35 USC 103 rejections is apt.
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 NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712