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 .
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, 5, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al in Ceramics International.
Kim et al teaches sintering in an alumina crucible, which reads on a mold. The material is a lunar regolith simulant and is in the form of a powder, which reads on the material contacting at least one surface. Sintering is conducted in a microwave furnace (page 26982) and the temperature is below the melting point (page 26893). Kim et al teaches linear shrinkage, which reads on at least some degree of “contraction.” Table 2 teaches the percent linear shrinkage at up to 3.75% (page 26894). Based on the equation on the same page, linear shrinkage is based on the percentage change from the inner diameter of the crucible (l0). Any decrease in measured diameter will be less than l0, which would result in a “gap” between the crucible and the sintered material. Kim et al further teaches the following:
[D]uring sintering, the distance between adjacent particles reduced as neck growth proceeded, resulting in the shrinkage of the sintered body. Increasing the temperature strengthened the interconnection of particles, thus increasing shrinkage … pore shrinkage reduces the particle distance with increasing sintering temperature” (page 26895).
Therefore, Kim et al teaches shrinkage during heating. The sintered lunar regolith simulant was removed from the crucible (page 26892). Kim et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim et al teaches simulated lunar regolith, which reads on the claimed material.
Regarding Claim 3, Kim et al teaches susceptor assisted microwave sintering (page 26892).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim et al teaches lunar soil contains iron oxide (page 26892).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim et al teaches the temperature is below the melting point.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim et al teaches passing the simulant through a #20 sieve (page 26892), which reads on sifting the material so that the material comprises particles having an upper size limit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al in Crystals.
Kim et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Kim et al does not teach adding a microwave susceptor to the material before irradiating as in Claim 4.
Chen et al teaches lunar regolith contains variations of TiO2 (abstract) and teaches sintering a regolith simulant while incorporating TiO2 before sintering (page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include TiO2 in the material of Kim et al before irradiating, since Chen et al teaches regolith doped with TiO2 causes shrinkage, greater density, and improved mechanical properties (abstract).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woodard et al (US 2018/0306512 A1)
Kim et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Kim et al does not teach the walls of the mold are transparent to the microwave radiation as in Claim 7 or rotating and/or translating the material during heating as in Claim 8.
Woodard et al teaches a furnace based on microwave radiation [0062]. Regarding Claim 7, Woodard et al teaches a furnace in which microwave energy is directed through a microwave transparent insulation material to heat susceptors that provides an enclosure to heat the green or brown object [0111]. Regarding Claim 8, Woodard et al teaches the object to be heated may be positioned on an insulated base plate that may be stationary or may rotate [0111]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the furnace of Woodard et al with the process of Kim et al, since Woodard et al teaches providing internal heating based on microwave radiation that can be highly flexible [0062].
Claims 12, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al in view of Chen et al.
Kim et al teaches sintering in an alumina crucible, which reads on a mold. The material is a lunar regolith simulant and is in the form of a powder, which reads on the material contacting at least one surface. Sintering is conducted in a microwave furnace (page 26982) and the temperature is below the melting point (page 26893). Kim et al teaches linear shrinkage, which reads on at least some degree of “contraction.” Table 2 teaches the percent linear shrinkage at up to 3.75% (page 26894). Based on the equation on the same page, linear shrinkage is based on the percentage change from the inner diameter of the crucible (l0). Any decrease in measured diameter will be less than l0, which would result in a “gap” between the crucible and the sintered material. Kim et al further teaches the following:
[D]uring sintering, the distance between adjacent particles reduced as neck growth proceeded, resulting in the shrinkage of the sintered body. Increasing the temperature strengthened the interconnection of particles, thus increasing shrinkage … pore shrinkage reduces the particle distance with increasing sintering temperature” (page 26895).
Therefore, Kim et al teaches shrinkage during heating. The sintered lunar regolith simulant was removed from the crucible (page 26892). However, Kim et al does not teach adding a microwave susceptor to the powder material.
Chen et al teaches lunar regolith contains variations of TiO2 (abstract) and teaches sintering a regolith simulant while incorporating TiO2 before sintering (page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include TiO2 in the material of Kim et al before irradiating, since Chen et al teaches regolith doped with TiO2 causes shrinkage, greater density, and improved mechanical properties (abstract).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim et al teaches simulated lunar regolith, which reads on the claimed material.
Regarding Claim 15, Kim et al teaches that the irradiation temperature is below the melting point.
Regarding Claim 20, Kim et al teaches passing the simulant through a #20 sieve (page 26892), which reads on sifting the material so that it comprises particles having an upper size limit.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al in view of Chen et al as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zhou et al in J. Aerosp. Eng.
Kim et al in view of Chen et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Kim et al in view of Chen et al does not teach adding iron oxide to the powdered material before irradiating as in Claim 14.
Zhou et al teaches microwave sintering lunar regolith simulants with different contents of ilmenite (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add ilmenite to lunar regolith in an amount of 4.6% in the method of Kim et al in view of Chen et al, since Zhou et al teaches an ilmenite concentration of 4.6% results in superior performance with good thermal insulation properties and optional compressive strength (page 6).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al in view of Chen et al as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Woodard et al.
Kim et al in view of Chen et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Kim et al in view of Chen et al does not teach the walls of the mold are transparent to the microwave radiation as in Claim 16 or rotating and/or translating the material during heating as in Claim 17.
Woodard et al is applied as discussed above. Regarding Claim 16, Woodard et al teaches a furnace in which microwave energy is directed through a microwave transparent insulation material to heat susceptors that provides an enclosure to heat the green or brown object [0111]. Regarding Claim 17, Woodard et al teaches the object to be heated may be positioned on an insulated base plate that may be stationary or may rotate [0111]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the furnace of Woodard et al with the process of Kim et al in view of Chen et al, since Woodard et al teaches providing internal heating based on microwave radiation that can be highly flexible [0062].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 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 9 and 18, none of the cited prior art suggest a relationship between a concentration of an iron oxide in the treated material and an irradiation time as claimed.
Regarding Claim 10, Bhattacharya et al in Energy teaches susceptor assisted microwave processing of materials (abstract):
As the susceptor is heated by the microwaves, the heat is transferred to the sample via the conventional modes of heat transfer. This elevates the temperature of the sample and the sample becomes increasingly lossy [sic] to be enable to interact with the microwaves once the coupling temperature is reached (page 311).
However, Bhattacharya et al does not teach preheating susceptor and material before irradiating with microwave radiation as claimed.
Regarding Claim 19, the cited prior art does not suggest the microwave sintering occurs in a vacuum or near a vacuum.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/31/2026 with respect to Kim et al in Ceramics International have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kim et al does not disclose that the material contracts away from at least one surface of the mold during heating to form a gap between the sintered material and the at least one surface of the mold. Applicant does not define a range for “a gap” between the sintered material and a surface of the mold. Absent any other limitation, the broadest interpretation of “gap” can be on the vertical sides of the mold and defined linearly. Kim et al teaches linear shrinkage, which reads on at least some degree of “contraction.” Table 2 teaches the percent linear shrinkage at up to 3.75% (page 26894). Based on the equation on the same page, linear shrinkage is based on the percentage change from the inner diameter of the crucible (l0). Any decrease in measured diameter will be less than l0, which would result in at least one “gap” between the crucible and the sintered material. When the measurement occurs in Kim et al is not germane to the actual shrinkage of the sintered material.
The rejections in the office action mailed 06/02/2026 are withdrawn but some of the cited prior art are applied in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Crane et al teaches the effects of particle size on microwave heating of dielectrics like iron oxide (abstract); as the particle size of the metal oxide or dielectric decreases, there is better coupling of the microwaves to submicron sized particles with an increase in heating, decrease of volume of air voids, increase the effective conductivity, and increase induced current density (page 115).
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
