DETAILED 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.
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 in order 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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata et al. (US 2008/0227906) in view of Ebdon et al. (US 2020/0029557).
Regarding claim 1: Sakata et al. teaches an organic binder/resin for molding a sinterable inorganic powder (title, abstract) comprising a polyglycolic acid (para. 30).
Sakata et al. does not teach the degradation catalyst, but instead removes the resin via an alkaline gas. However, Ebdon et al. teaches a biodegradable polymer such as poly(glycolic acid) (para. 10-11) where the degradation of the resin is enhanced by a Lewis acid (para. 9) such as titanium tetrabutoxide (para. 47). Sakata et al. and Ebdon et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely degrading the polymer polyglycolic acid. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the Lewis acid titanium tetrabutoxide of Ebdon et al. in the composition of Sakata et al. and would have been motivated to do so to avoid the environmental concerns of alkaline gas.
The examples in the instant specification achieve the weight reduction percentage limitation claimed by the combination of polyglycolic acid and titanium tetrabutoxide.
Regarding claim 3: Sakata et al. teaches 2-40 wt% of the binder in the compact composition (para. 36) in with the sinterable inorganic powder (abstract), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4: Sakata et al. teaches molding the composition (para. 18).
Regarding claim 5: Sakata et al. teaches a degreased body where the resin is decomposed and removed from the compact formed by molding the composition (para. 18).
Regarding claim 6: Sakata et al. teaches an inorganic material molded article (title, abstract) formed by heat-treating/sintering the degreased body (para. 19).
Regarding claim 7: Sakata et al. teaches a method of producing an inorganic material molded article (abstract) comprising molding the composition (para. 18), depolymerizing/decomposing and removing the resin/polyglycolic acid (para. 18, 30) to obtain a degreased body and heat treating/sintering the body to obtain the article (para. 19).
Regarding claim 8: Sakata et al. teaches a method of producing an inorganic material molded article (abstract) comprising molding the composition (para. 18), degrading/decomposing and removing the resin/polyglycolic acid (para. 18, 30) at a temperature of 20-190 °C (para. 20) in water (para. 114) to obtain a degreased body and heat treating/sintering the body to obtain the article (para. 19).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights