DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-25 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 3, and 11 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.
Claim 1 recites that the first region comprises “oxide which contains Si and Al” and that the second region comprises “oxide which contains Si and Al”. From this wording it is unclear if said regions must contain a compound oxide of silicon and aluminum, or if the intended claim coverage is also of a region comprising separate oxides, i.e. SiO2 along with Al2O3. Because of these ambiguities, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and claim 1 is indefinite under USC 112.
Claim 3 recites that the first region has a proportion that satisfies 75 vol% or more of “a maximum amount of mullite”. It is unclear it this is meant to mean that said region comprises 75 vol% or more mullite, or that, given the SiO2/Al2O3 ratio of the region, it must contain at least 75% of the possible mullite formable from this composition. Claim 3 is indefinite under USC 112 because of these ambiguities.
Claim 11 recites that the second region is “surrounded” by the first and third regions, but from this wording it is unclear what structural configuration is meant to be covered by the claim. This limitation could indicate that the first and third regions are concentrically around the second region and each completely encompass said second region, or that the first and third regions each only partially enclose the second region, and together they surround the second region. Because of this ambiguity, the metes and bounds of claim 11 are unclear and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murakami et al (WO 2021079909 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Murakami et al teaches a ceramic article manufacturing method wherein a powder layer is formed from a mixture of SiO2 powder, Al2O3 powder, and an absorber. The adsorber can be chosen as SiO powder. In the Murakami et al process, said powder mixture is melted and solidified by laser beam scanning, and thereafter a new powder layer is formed to cover this solidified section. Murakami et al teaches that a molded object is created by repeating this process of forming and solidifying layers, and the thus formed molded object is heat treated at 1680°C. Murakami et al teaches an example in which the composition is 55.4 wt% SiO powder, 42.5 wt% Al2O3 powder, and 2.1 wt% SiO powder (see paragraphs [0104]-[0121], [0130], and [0147]-[0150]).
Murakami et al teaches that, upon heating, the aluminum component distributed in the crack portion diffuses into the crystalline and non-crystalline inside of the modeled product, and the crystal of the modeled product recrystallizes in a state containing the aluminum component. Murakami et al thus teaches a crystalline region.
Each limitation of instant claim 14 is thus met by the Murakami et al teachings, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 15, Murakami et al teaches that the heat treatments are carried out at 1680 °C.
Regarding claim 16, Murakami et al teaches heat treatments lasting 50 minutes.
Regarding claims 17-19, Murakami et al teaches a SiO absorber, which is the same as that instantly disclosed in the Specification. This equivalent absorber would thus inherently have an equivalent absorbability to laser beam induced light wavelengths.
Regarding claim 20, Murakami et al teaches that the SiO2 component has an average size of 5-200 µm, and that the absorber component has a particle size of 1-10 µm.
Regarding claim 21, as discussed above, Murakami et al teaches an embodiment wherein the SiO (absorber) amount is 2.1 wt%. This falls within the instantly claimed range when considered in vol%.
Regarding claim 22, Murakami et al teaches a step of allowing the modeled object to absorb a metal component-containing liquid containing a metal element before the heat treatment.
Regarding claim 23, Murakami et al teaches that the infiltrated metal can be Zr.
Regarding claim 24, Murakami et al teaches eutectic formation and thus a heating temperature above the eutectic point of Si and the metal element.
Regarding claim 25, Murakami et al teaches that the metal element content in the powder is less than 3.0 wt%.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 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 1-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al (WO 2021079909 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami et al teaches a ceramic article manufacturing method wherein a powder layer is formed from a mixture of SiO2 powder, Al2O3 powder, and an absorber. The adsorber can be chosen as SiO powder. In the Murakami et al process, said powder mixture is melted and solidified by laser beam scanning, and thereafter a new powder layer is formed to cover this solidified section. Murakami et al teaches that a molded object is created by repeating this process of forming and solidifying layers, and the thus formed molded object is heat treated at 1680°C. Murakami et al teaches an example in which the composition is 55.4 wt% SiO powder, 42.5 wt% Al2O3 powder, and 2.1 wt% SiO powder (see paragraphs [0104]-[0121], [0130], and [0147]-[0150]).
It is apparent from the instant disclosure in the Specification that the structure of the instantly claimed ceramic, having therein three regions of differing composition, is resultant from the process by which the layers are formed. As shown above, Murakami et al teaches a method wherein a compositionally equivalent powder mixture is processed according to steps that are identical to those disclosed in the Specification (specifically example 2) and the claims. The resultant ceramic structure must therefore also be equivalent to that instantly claimed. As such, the Murakami et al ceramic is understood to have a region comprising Si and Al, a second region comprising Si and Al wherein said second region contains more Si than said first region, and a third region comprising Al and that is poorer in Si than said first region. Similarly, processing an equivalent starting mixture with equivalent processing steps would necessarily result in a ceramic having an equivalent mole ratio SiO2/Al2O3 and region crystallinities. Therefore, each limitation of claim 1 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, as above, the equivalent processing of an equivalent starting powder mixture would necessarily result in a ceramic structure that is equivalent to that of the instant claims. The grain size and aspect ratio limitations of instant claim 2 are thus necessarily met by the Murakami et al teachings.
Regarding claim 3, as above, the equivalent processing of an equivalent starting powder mixture would necessarily result in a ceramic structure that is equivalent to that of the instant claims, and the further limitation to mullite content is necessarily also present in the Murakami et al ceramic.
Regarding claim 4, as above, the equivalent processing of an equivalent starting powder mixture would necessarily result in a ceramic structure that is equivalent to that of the instant claims, and the further limitation to second region composition is necessarily also present in the Murakami et al ceramic. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 5, Murakami et al teaches that, upon heating, the aluminum component distributed in the crack portion diffuses into the crystalline and non-crystalline inside of the modeled product, and the crystal of the modeled product recrystallizes in a state containing the aluminum component. Murakami et al thus teaches a crystalline region.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, Murakami et al teaches a ceramic produced by an equivalent process from an equivalent starting mixture, and further teaches aluminum-silicon crystalline regions. The third region necessarily present in the Murakami et al ceramic would therefore also be crystalline.
Regarding claim 7, Murakami et al teaches an equivalent starting mixture processed according to equivalent steps, and as such the resultant ceramic would also necessarily be equivalent to that of the instant claims. The further limitations to a fourth region would thus necessarily also be present in the Murakami et al ceramic structure.
Regarding claim 8, Murakami et al teaches infiltration with a metal element-containing solution, and wherein said metal element can be Zr. This would produce a region comprising Zr.
Regarding claims 9-10, Murakami et al teaches an equivalent starting mixture processed according to equivalent steps, and as such the resultant ceramic would also necessarily be equivalent to that of the instant claims. The further limitations to a first region containing a silicon-aluminum compound mullite would thus also necessarily be present in the Murakami et al ceramic structure.
Regarding claim 12, the equivalently composed and produced ceramic taught by Murakami et al would necessarily also have equivalent crystallinity in the various regions.
Regarding claim 13, the equivalently composed and produced ceramic taught by Murakami et al would necessarily also have equivalent compositions in the regions, and thus would have a cristobalite region.
Conclusion
12. No claim is allowed.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW24 July 2026
Prosecution Insights