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 .
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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 04/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 40-59 remain pending in the application. Claims 40, 48-49, and 52 are amended. Claims 1-39 remain cancelled.
Applicant' s Arguments and Amendments, filed 04/16/2026, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims except as specifically noted below.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 7-11, filed 04/16/2026, with respect to Claims 40-41, 43-48 and Claims 50-52 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and due to the Amendment to Claim 40 filed 04/16/2026, there are new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendment. The Examiner will address applicable arguments.
Examiner Note: in the Argument/Remarks Made in Amendment dated 04/16/2026, it clear the
Applicant meant to type,
“claims 48 and 52” on Page 7 lines 9, 11.
“claims 40-42 and 43-48 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over” on Page 7 line 25.
“claims 50 and 52 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over” on Page 7 line 28.
“ relies on the Li and/Wang documents” on Page 8 line 2.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, both sets of claims regarding 103 rejections will be addressed
in combination by Arguments and Response to Claim 40.
Regarding Claim 40, the Applicant argues that,
none of the prior art references suggests (Li, Wang, Ng) suggests a particle size ratio of ceramic
powder to clay powder is about 3:1 to about 200:1.
The instant application outlines many benefits of a particle size ratio of ceramic powder to clay
powder of about 3:1 to about 200:1, such as,
provides for a ceramic support or supported ceramic membrane with both high water permeation and high mechanical strength (page 10, line 23-26).
improving the mechanical strength (page 14, line 23-26).
the formed ceramic paste demonstrates good formability, and elastic solid behaviour(page 35, line 26 - page 36, line 13).
when the ceramic material is heated, there is disappearance of the larger pores disappear, resulting in a smaller pore distribution (Figure 5).
sintered ceramic supports have good pure water flux and flexural strength.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
While the alumina particle size was optimized for 5um -20um by the combination of Li and Wang, the Examiner would like to note that Wang does teach ceramic powder (alumina) particle size range of 3um-25um (lines 49-50), where optimization is not needed, but presents a prima facie case for obviousness for the claimed ceramic powder having an average particle size of about 5 um to about 20 um. This does not alter the Applicant’s argument regarding none of the prior art references suggests (Li, Wang, Ng) suggests a particle size ratio of ceramic powder to clay powder is about 3:1 to about 200:1.
Wang teaches the ceramic powder (alumina) particle size range of 11.7um to 21.25um for the purpose of obtaining a uniform pore size, as noted by Wang (line 110). Harmon teaches clay particle size of .05um to 1um. Ng is not used to teach particle size of alumina ceramic powders or clay powders. The calculated ceramic powder to clay powder particle size ratio is from 11.7:1 to 425:1 in comparison to the claimed ceramic powder particle size to clay powder particle size ratio range from about 3:1 to about 200:1. Overlapping ranges provide prima facie evidence of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05). Further, the instant application describes benefits of regulating the amount and distribution of clay nanoflakes (kaolin) in the coarse alumina matrix to support high water permeating and high mechanical strength (Page 10 lines 23-27) with further benefits described (Page 11 lines 1-9, Page 14 lines 23-28). Moreover, benefits of the ceramic powder particle size are also noted (Page 13 lines 18-21). In summary, the particle size ranges of the ceramic powder and the clay powder have benefits individually, not directly due to the ceramic powder particle size to clay powder particle size ratio. Hence, the ceramic powder particle size to clay powder particle size ratios in the instant application (Page 14 lines 30-35) are simply calculated without criticality. To note, the Examiner uses the instant application information to support Examiner Response, not as claim limitations.
As noted in a) above, the particle size ranges of the ceramic powder and the clay powder have
benefits individually, not directly due to the ceramic powder particle size to clay powder particle
size ratio. Further, that the instant application shows certain features and benefits noted by the
Applicant, those benefits and features are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the
claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read
into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, Applicant's arguments for a) and b) do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Hence, the Rejection for Claim 40 is maintained. As Claims 41, 43-48, 50 and 52 depend on Claim 40, or claims dependent on Claim 40, the rejections of Claims 41, 43-48, 50 and 52 are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “about” in claim 40 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the phrase “less than about” means less than +/-1%, +/-5% or +/-10% or other of claimed values, the specification does not provide a standard or definition, and those skilled in the art may have different interpretations of the meaning of the phrase “about”. Parameters, quantities and limitations rendered indefinite by using the phrase “about”:
Claim 1 - a particle size ratio of ceramic powder to clay powder is about 3:1 to about 200:1.
All dependent claims not cited but dependent on the independent and dependent claims above are also hereby rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 40-41, 43-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108201715A (as
submitted in the IDS dated 08/26/2023) (English language translation of the Description and provided
herewith and referenced herein) by Li et. al. (herein “Li”) and in further view of CN111704439A (as
submitted in the IDS dated 08/26/2023) (English language translation of the Description and provided
herewith and referenced herein) by Wang et. al. (herein “Wang”) and in further view of NPL “ Properties
of Kaolinite as a Function of its Particle Size” by Harman et. al. (herein “Harman”).
Regarding Claim 40 - Li teaches a method of fabricating a ceramic paste, a porous ceramic support or a supported ceramic membrane, comprising,
mixing a ceramic powder, a clay powder and a binder to form a mixture, kneading the mixture of step (a) in an aqueous or non-aqueous medium and a humectant to form a ceramic paste; lines 52-53, “…α phase alumina powder (ceramic) , sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (binder), kaolin (clay), glycerin (humectant), and ionized water are mixed and stirred..,”
and aging the ceramic paste for at least 24 h; lines 55-56, “ the stirring material is extruded through a vacuum extruder, the stirring material is The sealed container is aged for 12-24h…”
wherein the ceramic powder is about 70 wt% to about 80 wt% in the ceramic paste; lines 53-54, “…α phase alumina powder 69.50-72.50 wt.%...”
wherein the clay powder is about 5 wt% to about 15 wt% in the ceramic paste; line 54, “…kaolin 4.50-5.50wt.%...”
While Li teaches the use of alumina ceramic powder, and one skilled in the art would know ceramic powders have different sizes of particles depending on manufacturing methods used, Li fails to teach,
and wherein the ceramic powder has an average particle size of about 5 um to about 20 um.
In a similar endeavor of fabricating ceramic membranes, Wang teaches using an alumina powder with a particle size range of 15um-25um (65%-75% mass fraction) as well as 3um-1um (15%-25% mass fraction) (lines 49-50). A PHOSITA can calculate bracketing values based on particles size range and mass fraction, providing and average particle size range of 11.7um to 21.25um. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Wang’s particle size range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. One would have been motivated to use the average particle size range of Wang for the purpose of obtaining a uniform pore size, as noted by Wang (line 110).
While Li discloses the use of alumina powder (ceramic powder) and kaolin (clay powder) (lines 52-53) and Wang teaches 11.7 um – 21.25um particle size range of alumina powder (ceramic powder) (lines 49-50), the combination does not disclose,
and wherein a particle size ratio of ceramic powder to clay powder is about 3:1 to about 200:1.
In an analogous endeavor of using kaolin material and understanding kaolin particle size, Harman
describes properties of kaolin based on particle size, where a range of 0.05um to 1um is investigated
and a range of 2um to 20um is investigated. Table II below provides results showing permeability time
based upon particle size of kaolin (Page 257):
PNG
media_image1.png
408
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention was made to use a particle size of kaolin in the range of .05um to 1um per
Harman in the mixture and extrusion process of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so to
increase the permeability time to leach water by an order of magnitude, as noted by Harman (Table II).
One skilled in the art would know increasing leach time supports retained water in the mixture to
promote extrusion.
Further, using the kaolin particle size range of .05um to 1um of Harman and Wang’s alumina powder
(ceramic powder) particle size range of 11.7 um to 21.25um, the ceramic powder particle size to clay
powder particle size ratio is from 11.7:1 to 425:1. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of
obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of the range of Harman and the
combination that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 41 - Li, Wang, and Harman in the rejection of claim 40 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 40.
Li further teaches wherein,
the ceramic powder is selected from alumina, SiC, Si3N4, silicates, TiO2 or a combination
thereof; Li teaches this previously in Claim 1, lines 52-53 (alumina).
Regarding Claim 42 - Li, Wang, and Harman in the rejection of claim 40 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 40.
Li further teaches wherein,
the clay powder is selected from kaolin, dolomite, coalgangue, kyanite, smectite, illite, chlorite,
palygorskite (attapulgite), sepiolite or a combination thereof,; Li teaches this previously in Claim
1, lines 52-53 (kaolin).
While Li discloses the use of alumina powder (ceramic powder) and kaolin (clay powder) (lines 52-53) and Wang teaches alumina powder (ceramic powder) particle size range of 11.7 um to 21.25um, the combination does not disclose,
the clay powder has an average particle size of about 0.05 um to about 2 um.
Harman describes properties of kaolin based on particle size, where a range of 0.05um to 1um is
investigated and a range of 2um to 20um is investigated. Table II below provides results showing
permeability time based upon particle size of kaolin (Page 257):
PNG
media_image1.png
408
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention was made to use a particle size of kaolin in the range of .05um to 1um per
Harman in the mixture and extrusion process of Li, as one would be motivated to do so to increase the
permeability time to leach water by an order of magnitude, as noted by Harman (Table II). One skilled in
the art would know increasing leach time supports retained water in the mixture to promote extrusion.
Regarding Claim 43 - Li, Wang, and Harman in the rejection of claim 40 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 40.
Li further teaches wherein,
the binder is carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), polyvinylalcohol (PVA), polyvinyl butyral (PVB),
polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) or a combination thereof; Li teaches this previously in Claim
1, lines 52-53 (sodium carboxymethyl cellulose).
Regarding Claim 44 - Li, Wang, and Harman in the rejection of claim 40 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 40.
Li further teaches wherein,
the binder is about 2 wt% to about 8 wt% in the ceramic paste; line 54, “…Sodium
carboxymethyl cellulose 4.50-5.50wt.%...”
and wherein,
the solvent is about 5 wt% to about 20 wt% in the ceramic paste; line 55, “deionized water
15.00-20.00wt.%...”
Regarding Claim 45 - Li, Wang, and Harman in the rejection of claim 40 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 40.
Li further teaches wherein,
the humectant is glycerol, L-pyrrolidone carboxylic acid-Na, polyhydric alcohol, or a
combination thereof and wherein the humectant is about 0.1 wt% to about 1.5 wt% in the
ceramic paste; line 54, “… glycerol 1.50wt.%...”
Regarding Claim 46 - Li, Wang, and Harman in the rejection of claim 40 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 40.
Li further teaches wherein,
the ceramic paste is free of a pore forming agent; as Li does not recite a pore forming agent in
the paste (lines 52-55), the paste is absent a pore forming agent which reads on the instant
claim.
Regarding Claim 47 - Li, Wang, and Harman in the rejection of claim 40 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 40.
Li further teaches wherein,
the aging step is performed in an enclosed environment; Li teaches this previously in Claim 1,
lines 55-56 (“the stirring material is The sealed container is aged for 12-24h”).
Regarding Claim 48 - Li, Wang, and Harman in the rejection of claim 40 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 40.
Li further teaches wherein the method further comprising,
a step (d) (after step (c)) of extruding the aged ceramic paste in order to form an extruded aged
ceramic green body; lines 54-57, “ the stirring material is extruded through a vacuum extruder,
the stirring material is The sealed container is aged for 12-24h, and the extruded extrudate is
shaped. The moisture content of the wet embryo after the setting is 16-19%. After the wet
embryo is extruded…”
and wherein,
the extruded aged ceramic green body comprises an asymmetric porous structure having an
inner body conterminous to an outer surface; and wherein the inner body comprises a plurality
of voids; lines 104-107, 111-112, Fig. 2, -This part of the claim is considered to be directed to a
structural limitation only. While it does not directly impact the claimed method steps Li teaches
“The invention discloses a ceramic flat plate film for water treatment and a preparation method
thereof, which is different from the prior art in that the ceramic flat plate film body is composed
of a nano coating layer on the surface of the support body 1 and the support body 1, and the
support body 1 is filtered. The diameter of the pores is between 2mm and 4mm, the diameter
of the pores at the nano-coating is between 50nm and 300nm”, “In a specific implementation,
the ceramic flat film body has a width of 100 mm to 500 mm, a length of 500 mm to 1200 mm,
and a thickness of 5 mm to 8 mm” (i.e. a sheet with a thickness of 5mm to 8mm). Here, a
ceramic flat plate film body consists of support body and a nano layer on the support body. The
dimensions of the ceramic flat plate film body are due to the support body, where the support
body has holes that are 2mm to 4mm in size. Since the material is extruded, the 2mm to 4mm
holes in the support body can reside in one direction only, implying an asymmetric porous
structure having an inner body conterminous to an outer surface. Further, Fig. 2 below is a
ceramic flat plate film body (line 98) which illustrates the nano coating (upper portion of the
figure on the surface of the support body (lower portion of the figure). The support body has
larger particles wherein the support body contains voids.
PNG
media_image2.png
489
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Li teaches drying after extrusion (line 57, “After the wet embryo is extruded, it is dried…”), Li
fails to teach,
and drying the extruded aged ceramic green body for at least 24 h.
Wang further teaches an alumina-based material that is aged, extruded and dried (lines 68-69, 76-78).
More specifically, Example 3 is dried for 31hrs (lines 233-235). It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the drying
method of Wang in the process of Li, one being motivated to produce a plain embryo (a properly dried
green body before sintering), as noted by Wang (line 191). Further, drying formed green ceramic bodies
properly to prevent cracking is a known process in the ceramic industry to those skilled in the art. "A
person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If
this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and
common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 49 - Li, Wang, and Harman in the rejection of claim 48 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 48.
Wang teaches further comprising
a step (e) of at least partially sintering the extruded aged ceramic green body at about 1000 °C
to about 1500 °C for at least 2 h to form a porous ceramic support; lines 236-239 for Example 3,
“Sintering of the green body: the green body is sent to a shuttle kiln for sintering…sintered at
1340°C, the temperature is lowered after a holding time of 2h…”. One skilled on the art in the
ceramic industry would know that sintering cycles, typically, have a final sintering temperature
which is held for a certain amount of time to achieve desired produce requirements. It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to use the sintering temperature and time of Wang in the method of
Li, as one would be motivated to do so to provide a sintered ceramic support that can be coated
with a membrane to achieve desired attributes of the membrane, as noted by Wang (lines 252-
253).
While sintering ceramics typically involves material shrinkage (reduction in dimensions of a ceramic
body), and while the combination fails to teach,
wherein a thickness of the porous ceramic support decreases by less than about 8 % after the
sintering step; -this aspect of the claim is considered to be directed to a structural limitation
only.
Claims 50 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108201715A (as
submitted in the IDS dated 08/26/2023) (English language translation of the Description and provided
herewith and referenced herein) by Li et. al. (herein “Li”) and in further view of CN111704439A (as
submitted in the IDS dated 08/26/2023) (English language translation of the Description and provided
herewith and referenced herein) by Wang et. al (herein “Wang”) and in further view of NPL (as
submitted in the IDS dated 08/26/2023) “Effect of gradient profile in ceramic membranes on filtration
characteristics: Implications for membrane development” by Ng et. al. (herein “Ng”).
Regarding Claim 50 - Li, Wang, and Harman in the rejection of claim 49 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 49.
While Wang teaches the ceramic slurry comprises ceramic powder at about 10 wt% to about 40 wt% in
the slurry and wherein the ceramic powder in the ceramic slurry has a particle size of about 0.05 um to
about 5 um (Example 3, lines 241-242, “ Coating the membrane-forming liquid: vacuumize the alumina
membrane-forming liquid with…a particle size of 0.9 μm, and a solid content of 19%”), Wang’s teaching
lacks a motivation to do so.
Further, while the combination teaches a porous ceramic body 5mm-8mm thick (Li line 122) and a green
body sintered at 1340°C to provide (Wang lines 236-237) , the combination fails to teach further
comprising,
e) coating at least one layer of a ceramic slurry on a surface of the extruded aged ceramic green
body and drying the coated layer of ceramic slurry to form a membrane green body;
f) at least partially sintering the membrane green body and the extruded aged ceramic
green body at about 1000 °C to about 1500 °C to form the supported ceramic membrane;
In a similar endeavor of fabricating ceramic membranes, Ng teaches porous ceramic substrates of 6mm
thick sheets and alumina powder coatings with 27 % alumina, where a two-layer alumina powder
coating consists of a first layer alumina powder coating on the porous ceramic substrate, wherein the
first layer alumina powder has a particle size of 3.4um and a second layer alumina powder coating on
the first layer alumina powder coating where the second layer alumina powder has a particle size of
0.5um, and is applied by dip coating then followed by spin coating (2.1 Materials, 2.2 Fabrication of
gradient membranes, Fig. 1c). After drying the two-layer coating, the two-layer coating was sintered at
1300°C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to use the two-layer coating system and sintering temperature of Ng in
the method of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of providing a
gradient ceramic membrane that delays the onset of the transition fouling and reducing cake filtration,
as noted by Ng ( 3.4 Particle size retention). Further, while Ng does not teach applying the coatings to
an extruded aged ceramic green body (i.e. non-sintered), Ng does teach sintering the two-layer coating
at 1300°C, which is very close to the extruded aged ceramic green body sintering temperature of
1340°C of the combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the two-layer coating of Ng on the extruded
aged ceramic green body of the combination and sinter integrally the two-layer coating and the
extruded aged ceramic green body , as one would be motivated to do so for the common industrial
purpose of reduced time, cost and increased efficiency. Further, the use of a one-piece construction
instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the
general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965,
968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214.
Regarding Claim 52 – Li, Wang, Harman and Ng in the rejection of claim 50 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 50.
Ng further teaches wherein, step of coating at least one layer of ceramic slurry on a surface of the
extruded aged ceramic green body and drying the coated layer of ceramic slurry to form a membrane
green body (step e)) comprises,
the first membrane green body having an exposed surface distal from the surface of the
ceramic green body; Ng teaches this previously in Claim 50, 2.2 Fabrication, where spin coating
us deployed after dip coating. Spin coating inherently provides coatings on upward surfaces and
not edge surfaces.
wherein the first layer of ceramic slurry comprises ceramic powder having a particle size
of about 1 pm to about 5 pm, and wherein the second layer of ceramic comprises ceramic
powder having a particle size of about 0.05 pm to about 1.5 pm; Ng teaches this previously in
Claim 50, 2.1 Materials, 2.2 Fabrication.
coating a first layer of a first ceramic slurry on the surface of the ceramic green body and drying
the coated layer of the first ceramic slurry to form a first membrane green body; and ii) coating
a second layer of a second ceramic slurry on the exposed surface of the first layer and drying
the coated layer of the second ceramic slurry to form a second membrane green
body; Ng teaches applying the two coatings in sequence and then drying, before sintering.
While Ng does not teach a sequence of apply first layer/first layer dry/apply second
layer/second layer dry, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply/dry each coating layer separately,
since it has been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves
only routine skill in art. One would have been motivated to make the elements separable for
the purpose of ensuring the first layer adequately covered the rough surface (hills and valleys)
of the porous ceramic support body and a minimum thickness is present to prevent membrane
defects and degrade the retention performance, as noted by Ng (Fabrication and
Characterization of gradient membrane, lines 17-25). In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129
USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Claim 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108201715A (as
submitted in the IDS dated 08/26/2023) (English language translation of the Description and provided
herewith and referenced herein) by Li et. al. (herein “Li”) and in further view of CN111704439A (as
submitted in the IDS dated 08/26/2023) (English language translation of the Description and provided
herewith and referenced herein) by Wang et. al (herein “Wang”) and in further view of NPL (as
submitted in the IDS dated 08/26/2023) “Effect of gradient profile in ceramic membranes on filtration
characteristics: Implications for membrane development” by Ng et. al. (herein “Ng”) and in further view
of NPL “ Optimization of Alumina Slurry for Oxide-Oxide Ceramic Composites Manufactured by Injection
Molding” by Billote et. al (herein “Billote”).
Regarding Claim 51 – Li, Wang, Harman, and Ng in the rejection of claim 50 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 50.
While Li teaches the use of a surfactant in an alumina slurry (lines 149-150), where one skilled in the art
would know surfactants tend to be dispersing agents for particles, and Ng teaches the use of particle
size of 3.4um for a first coating layer and 0.5um for a second coating layer of alumina slurry coatings,
the combination fails to teach wherein,
the ceramic slurry comprises nitric acid at a concentration of about 0.01 mol/L to about 0.5
mol/L,
and/or wherein,
the ceramic slurry further comprises methyl cellulose at about 1 wt% to about 5 wt% in the
slurry.
In analogous effort to coat ceramic matrix composites with an alumina slurry with an average particle
size of 0.3um, Billote teaches adding HNO3 (nitric acid) to reduce the pH to 5-6, wherein the
concentration is 0.06mol/L (.17wt%). Further, the amount of nitric acid was varied between 0 and
.34wt% (Page 2 Col 2 , 2. Materials and Methods, lines 10-24) where the data table is shown in Table 1
with the corresponding acid wt% is in the column labelled “Acid Content, wt% acid”. As cited on Page 3
Col 2 lines 10-24, the addition of nitric acid creates a charge positive charge on the alumina particles.
Figure 2 indicates a stable zone of viscosity nitric acid levels between .08wt% and 0.17wt% (0.03mol/L
to 0.06mol/L). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate nitric acid in a certain amount from Billote into the
method of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of obtaining electrical
stability of the suspension with in a critical process zone, where if too much nitric acid is added strong
repulsive forces aggregates/precipitation occur and if too little nitric acid is added attraction forces are
too strong and flocculation occurs, both leading to inadequate dispersion of the alumina particles, as
noted by Billote (Page 3, 3.1 Influence of Acid Content, lines 7-16). As the nitric acid range of Billote is
between 0.03mol/L to 0.06mol/L, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to have selected the portion of Billote’s nitric acid range that corresponds to the claimed
range. See MPEP 2144.05.
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 CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights