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 group I in the reply filed on 05/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-11 and 20-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/16/2026.
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(s) 1-5 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan Wei et al ("Low-toxic gelcasting of giant dielectric-constant CaCu₃Ti₄O₁₂ ceramics from the molten salt powder", JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN CERAMIC SOCIETY, vol. 35, no. 13, November 2015, pages 3529-3534).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 14, Wan discloses a method of preparing a mixture for use in forming a green ceramic (page 3529); the method includes mixing a linear copolymer of acrylic acid and 2 acrylamido 2 methyl propane sulfonic acid (abstract), water (3529) and CaCu₃Ti₄O₁₂ ceramic nanoparticles, i.e. up to 100 nm, (3529, fig. 2) and the method used for producing the CaCu₃Ti₄O₁₂ nano powder).
Wan discloses the desired amounts of copolymer and ceramic nanoparticles are used to obtain good dispersion effect, stabilization, electrostatic stabilization mechanisms and desired viscosity (page 3531-3532). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amounts of the copolymer and ceramic nanoparticles are not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the dispersion effect, stabilization and electrostatic stabilization mechanisms and viscosity are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amounts of the copolymer and ceramic particles, the precise amounts would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amounts of the copolymer and ceramic nanoparticles in the mixture of Wan to obtain the desired dispersion effect, stabilization and electrostatic stabilization mechanisms and viscosity(In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claims 4 and 15-16, Wan discloses the mixture of claim 1, wherein the metal oxide ceramic nanoparticles can be alumina (3529).
Regarding claims 5 and 17-19, Wan discloses the mixture of claim 1 wherein Wan does not explicitly discloses molar ratio between acrylic acid and 2 acrylamido 2 methyl propane sulfonic acid. However, when faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights