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 .
The amendment of May 18, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 3-4 and 16-20 are canceled, and claims 1-2, 5-15 and new claims 21-29 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-2 and 5-15, in the reply filed on October 21, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
It is noted that non-elected claims 3-4 and 16-20 have been canceled by the amendment of May 18, 2026.
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.
Claim 8, 13 and 26 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 8, claim 1, “the metal” lacks antecedent basis and is confusing and indefinite as to what is intended. This claim depends from claim 1 which does not have this material listed (this would have been in original claim 3). Furthermore, if oxides required how can the material be Ti, Al, Ba, Ni, Zn, or Bi? For the purpose of examination, it is considered as metal oxide required, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter. This rejection is maintained as issues as to “the metal” remain, and applicant has not amended the claims as to this issue or specifically addressed this issue in the May 18, 2026 amendment.
Claim 13, line 4, “KNBNNO, potassium sodium barium niobium nickel oxide (KNBNNO)” is confusing as worded as to what is intended, with KNBNNO repeated twice. For the purpose of examination, it is considered that simply “potassium sodium barium niobium nickel oxide (KNBNNO)” is intended, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 26, claim 1, “the metal” lacks antecedent basis and is confusing and indefinite as to what is intended. This claim depends from claim 1 which does not have this material listed (this would have been in original claim 3). Furthermore, if oxides required how can the material be Ti or Ba? For the purpose of examination, it is considered as metal oxide required, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim Objections
The objection to claims 13 and 14 because in claims 13 and 14, “PZT” and “KNBNNO” should be defined is withdrawn, noting the provided amendments of May 18, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 5, 6, 8-13, 21-24 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannu et al (US 2020/0123638) in view of Peras (US 3036018), Mizukami et al (US 2008/0248360) and Rothbrust et al (US 2005/0164045).
Claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 21, 26: Hannu teaches a process for making ceramic-composite materials (note 0017, 0025), where the composite materials can be used for making electronics components (note 0014 so considered electroceramics in that form) and as well can be made of the same materials used by applicant such as Li2MoO3, etc. and PSZT, TiO2, etc. (as in present claim 13) (note 0016, 0026, so considered electroceramic in that sense) and described as having electroceramic material (note 0016, so the composite can be considered an electroceramic). The process includes providing an aqueous solution of a first ceramic by dissolving first ceramic powder into water, obtaining a powder containing the first ceramic precipitated on the surface of second ceramic particles by mixing second ceramic powder having a multimodal particle size with the aqueous solution of the first ceramic, obtaining a powder mixture by mixing the powder containing the first ceramic precipitated on the surface of the second ceramic particles with the first ceramic powder having a particle size below 50 microns, obtaining an aqueous composition containing the first ceramic and second ceramic by adding saturated aqueous solution of the first ceramic to the powder mixture, forming a disc of the ceramic-ceramic composite material (electroceramic composite material) containing the first and second ceramic by compressing the aqueous composition into a mold, removing water from the electroceramic composite material by drying the disc, where the content of the first ceramic is 10-35 vol% (note 0025, claim 4), where the content of the second ceramic can be above 65 vol% (note 0035, claim 4), and the multimodal particle size of the second ceramic powder can be above 50 microns (note 0035, note claim 4) and be less than 180 microns (note claim 4), thus forming the composite material by the process as in present claim 10.
Hannu does not specifically teach to further post treat the composite material as in present claim 1. However, Hannu describes how the composite can have ceramic material such as TiO2 present (note 0016). Hannu also describes that the composite can combine the optimum characteristics of different ceramic materials, including versatile electrical performances (note 0012).
Peras describes how ceramics can be formed to having specific electrical properties in the ceramic mass for electrical use (note column 1, lines 10-40), where the ceramic article contains ceramic oxide, with notably 5-80 wt% TiO2 (titanium oxide) (note column 1, lines 20-30, column 2, lines 20-25). The TiO2 can be mixed in with other ceramic (such as Al2O3 and SiO2) and baked (note column 1, lines 30-20) or the TiO2 can be introduced into the base ceramic mass in a porous form by impregnation of a titanium salt such as titanium tetrachloride in a solution (so in a liquid solution of this material in a flowable form), where the porous mass can be immersed in the solution to impregnate/absorb into the pores, which can allow control of area of application (note column 2, lines 20-60). Thereafter, the mass with absorbed titanium salt would be treated with water to hydrolyze, that is react to form TiO2, which at least considering the drying described, would be in solid form, giving a metal oxide impregnated ceramic material containing solid metal oxide absorbed in the pores (note column 2, lines 20-60).
Mizukami describes how a metal salt solution that can impregnate a porous substrate can be a metal alkoxide which is then treated with water to hydroxyle the metal alkoxide to give a metal oxide that is applied to the surface of the pores of the substrate and dried (and thus would give a solid metal oxide) (note 0057), and indicates a titanium salt that can be provided in solution (so in a flowable compound state), impregnated in a porous article and that can be treated with water to form titanium oxide (TiO2, note 0051), would be titanium isopropoxide (an organometallic compound) (note 0065, 0070), which is the compound desired by present claims 2 and 21.
Rothbrust describes how impregnation/infiltration of a shaped ceramic part can be provided (note figures 1, 4, 0021-0024). The process includes introducing the shaped ceramic part into a pressure chamber and introducing flowable impregnation material also into the chamber (note figure 1, 0044, 0047, note the separate introduction of material into the chamber, which is allowed by the claims). The ceramic part is degassed by creating a vacuum/underpressure in the chamber (note 0021), where the ceramic part would be immersed in the flowable material in order to impregnate the whole article, or at least be suggested to be immersed in this material so that the desired impregnation will efficiently cover the whole article (note fill line 24 in figure 1 would appear to immerse the part 10, 0046-0048). The pressure in the chamber is elevated to an atmospheric pressure (note the venting) where the flowable material will be absorbed/impregnated into the at least part of the pores of the ceramic part (note impregnation also occurs during vacuum, note 0024, 0025, 0065 – with venting, where the chamber can be opened after venting, indicating return to atmospheric pressure—0045). The amount/thickness of the coating can be controlled by part porosity, infiltration time, viscosity of solution (note 0023), where the penetration depth can be adjusted (note 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hannu to further control the amount of TiO2, for example, added and where added, such as to the outer area of the composite material, by using an infiltration process as described by present claim 1 as suggested by Peras, Mizukami and Rothbrust in order to provide desirable control of application area of TiO2, for example, where Hannu describes how an electroceramic composite material can be formed by the process desired by present claim 10, and where material such as TiO2 can be desirably present in the composite material, and Peras indicates that when forming a composite ceramic material (initial ceramic material), it can be desired to provide a controlled amount of TiO2 to give desired electrical properties, and where the TiO2 can be provided by mixing in with the other ceramic composite components or can be infiltrated in as a flowable titanium salt material, with the component immersed in the salt material, which is impregnated/absorbed into the pores of the component and then treated with water so that the salt is reacted with water to form the solid TiO2 (metal oxide) in the pores of the ceramic, which allows for controlled placement of TiO2, and where Mizukami would suggest that titanium isopropoxide would be a predictably acceptable titanium salt for this infiltration purpose, giving using an organometallic compound as desired by present claims 1, 2 and 21, and Rothbrust would suggest that the impregnation can be predictably an acceptably provided in a controlled fashion by introducing the shaped ceramic part/composite material into a pressure chamber and introducing flowable impregnation material (flowable organometallic compound) also into the chamber, where the composite would be degassed by creating a vacuum/underpressure in the chamber, where the composite would be immersed in the flowable material in order to impregnate the whole article, and the pressure in the chamber would elevated to an atmospheric pressure where the flowable material will be absorbed/impregnated into the at least part of the pores of the ceramic part, where the amount/thickness of the coating can be controlled by part porosity, infiltration time, viscosity of solution, where the penetration depth can be adjusted, giving a suggested impregnation process to use that gives control of the application, and by providing these features as discussed above, all features of claims 1, 2, 8 (where the impregnated metal oxide would be TiO2 as discussed above), 10, 21 and 26 would be suggested.
Claims 5 and 22-23: as to further drying the metal oxide impregnated component by heating, this would be suggested by Peras (note column 2, lines 50-60), Also note Mizukami at 0065, 0070. For claim 22 as to drying at 110-130 degrees C for 1.5-3.5 hours and claim 23 as to drying at 120 degrees C for 2 hours, Peras notes a drying step under atmospheric conditions for 24 hours (note column 2,lines 55-60) and also a heating step at 100 degrees before further baking steps (note column 2, lines 55-60, note as worded, it is not prevented by the claims to have multiple heating/drying steps). Mizukami describes how impregnated titanium oxide from titanium isporoporixde can be dried at 120 degrees C for two hours (in the claimed ranges of claims 22, 23) (note 0070). Therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the drying conditions, including temperature and time, from the teaching of Peras and Mizukami, giving values in the claimed ranges. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 6 and 24: As to the underpressure, Rothbrust suggests 20 mbar, in the claimed range of claim 6 (note 0046, 0058, 0021). Furthermore, for claim 24, Rothbrust gives suggested ranges, but generally provides for simply using a low pressure (note 0046, 0021), and therefore it would have been obvious to optimize the underpressure for the specific article treated, giving a value in the claimed range. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 9 and 27: as to removing excess flowable organometallic compound from the surface of the composite before water treatment, Rothbrust would suggest that after the impregnation treatment, infiltration material remainders (which would be the excess organometallic compound) can be removed with a towel (note 0067), and it would be suggested that this be provided before treatment with water so that reaction is not provided with undesired material, where removing with a towel can be considered wiping as desired by claim 27.
Claims 11 and 28: Hannu would indicate that compressing the aqueous composition can be performed with a pressure of 100-500 MPa, preferably 250 MPa, in the claimed range of claims 11 and 28 (note 0027).
Claims 12 and 29: Hannu would indicate that the disc is dried for at least 16 h at a temperature of 20-120 degrees C, preferably for 16 h at 12o degrees C (note 0028), in the claimed range of claims 12 and 29.
Claim 13: Hannu would provide that the first ceramic can be at least one of Li2MoO4, Na2Mo2O7, K2Mo2O7, etc., (note 0026), and the second ceramic can be PZT, Al2O3, etc. (note 0026).
Claims 7 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannu in view of Peras, Mizukami and Rothbrust as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-13, 21-24 and 26-29 above, and further in view of Schneider (US 2001/0033922).
Claims 7 and 25: further as to subjecting the composite material to overpressure of an absolute pressure of about 3 bar or more for 2-10 minutes, before the treating with water to enhance penetration of the organometallic compound into the pores,
Schneider describes impregnating material into an article (here wood) (note 0001), where it describes using first establishing a vacuum in a chamber with the article, then filling the chamber with impregnating fluid and the re-establishing atmospheric pressure, and finally an overpressure of 7.5 bar for a period of time (note 0034), where the period of time can be 5-18 minutes, for example (note 0034, 0040), overlapping the claimed range of claim 25.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hannu in view of Peras, Mizukami and Rothbrust to further provide an overpressure after the establishing of atmospheric pressure and before the water treatment as suggested by Schneider with an expectation of providing further impregnation, since Rothbrust indicates impregnation with vacuum and then re-establishing atmospheric pressure, and Schneider indicates further providing a pressure of 7.5 bar, in the claimed range, after such a process for desired impregnation, which would be understood to further enhance penetration of the flowable compound into the pores as putting pressure on the compound which would push it towards the pores, and this would occur before the water treatment as part of the impregnation that occurs before such treatment, and further Schneider indicates time of the overpressure can be 5-18 minutes, and it would have been obvious to optimize from such a range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannu in view of Peras, Mizukami and Rothbrust as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-13, 21-24 and 26-29above, and further in view of Curry et al (US 2012/0245016) and Randall et al (US 2017/0088471).
Claim 14, 15: further as to providing the features of present claims 14 and 15 as to the making of the electroceramic composite material, as to providing electroceramic powder and applying pressure as claimed in present claims 14 and 15, in the process of Hannu as discussed for claim 10 above, Hannu indicates providing second ceramic powders that can be considered as electroceramic powders as for claims 14 and 15, noting that these powders can be PZT or KNBNNO and have a major (at least in terms of size) or amount fraction of particles having a particle size of 50-180 microns, in the claimed range (0020, 0026, claim 4), and since the particles can have a range of 50-180 microns, it is understood that there would acceptably be a variety of particle diameters within this range. Hannu further indicates that the resulting composition can also have added smaller particles (note the first ceramic with a particle size below 50 microns) (note 0025). Hannu describes that the formed composition is molded with an applied pressure of 100-500 MPa, in the claimed range (note 0025, 0027).
As to further forming the composition with further adding of the water insoluble flowable metal oxide precursor for covering surfaces of the electroceramic (second) powder/particles, and a minor fraction of the second particle having diameters smaller than the lower limit of the particles with a variety of particle diameters, and the molding at 100-500 MPa also at a maximum temperature within 100-500 degrees C to form a disc of the composite material,
Curry teaches making ceramic composite material (note 0003,0033), which can be considered as making an electroceramic material (noting the particles used corresponding to ceramics used by applicant in claim 15, such as PZT, note 0037) where the process including, forming a combination of flowable metal oxide precursor which is water-insoluble (note 0054, with zirconate and titanate materials considered metal oxide precursors, which would be at least predictably and acceptably water insoluble as polymer material to be maintained, and noting materials such as vinyltrimethoxysilane understood to be water insoluble), and electroceramic powder (note 0037) for covering surfaces of the electroceramic particles of the powder with the metal oxide precursor (note 0066, by mixing the material, the particles would be covered, also note the precursors penetrate through the mixture to particle surfaces to bind directly to the surfaces, see 0054, where the material helps bind ceramic particles together, note 0050), a major fraction of the particles having particle diameters within a range of 50-200 microns and a minor fraction of the particles having diameters smaller than the lower limit of the range, the major fraction having a variety of particle diameters (note 0046, for example a range of large particles 0f 40-220 microns, and intermediate particles 500 nm-5 microns, for example, and one would optimize the amount of each), applying pressure in the range of 100-500 MPa to the combination, and exposing the combination under the pressure to a heat treatment, for predetermined period for forming the molded electroceramic composite material (note 0084-0085, about 456 MPa for 30 metric tons/square inch). The electroceramic powder can be PZT, for example (note 0037). The composite can be used for making electronic components (note page 13).
Randall indicates providing pressure and heat to sinter/densify/combine material including ceramic powder (note 0008, 0028, 0029), where the temperature is no more than about 200 degrees C and the pressure can be 30-2000 MPa (note 0032, 0033), and example temperature is 120 degrees C for ceramic sintering which occurs for a defined period (note 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hannu in view of Peras, Mizukami and Rothbrust to further provide that the second ceramic particles are also provided with a minor fraction of the particles having diameters smaller than 50 microns, and the composition to be formed into a disc also includes a water insoluble metal oxide precursor that covers surfaces of the electroceramic particles with metal oxide precursor, as suggested by Curry with an expectation of providing desirably connected particles, since Hannu indicts providing electroconductive (second) powders/particles with a major fraction in the claimed range, and that smaller particles can also be present, and Curry indicates that it is also common to use multimodal ceramic particles with some particles in a smaller size range, such a 500 nm to 5 micron when forming a composite, and further indicates using composition to be molded also including a water insoluble metal oxide precursor that covers surfaces of the electroceramic particles with metal oxide precursor in order to help bind the particles together. Furthermore, it would it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hannu in view of Peras, Mizukami, Rothbrust and Curry to further provide that the second ceramic particles are also molded/formed into the disc at the pressure claimed while heating to a temperature in the claimed range such as 120 degrees C for a defined period as suggested by Randall with an expectation of providing a desirable forming, since Hannu indicates molding/forming into a disc under pressure in the claimed range to from the disc, and Curry indicates molding/forming under pressure and heat for a defined time, and Randall indicates that sintering/forming under pressure in the claimed range can be done with heat in the claimed range, such as 120 degrees C, for a defined time.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14-15, 21-24 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/116531 (hereinafter ‘531, used as provided with the IDS of February 29, 2024) in view of Peras (US 3036018), Mizukami et al (US 2008/0248360) and Rothbrust et al (US 2005/0164045).
Claim 1, 2, 8, 14, 15, 21 and 26: ‘531 teaches making electroceramic composite material (note page 1), where the process including, as in present claim 14, forming a combination of flowable metal oxide precursor which is water-insoluble, and electroceramic powder, for covering surfaces of the electroceramic particles of the powder with the metal oxide precursor, a major fraction of the particles having particle diameters within a range of 50-200 microns and a minor fraction of the articles having diameters smaller than the lower limit of the range, the major fraction having a variety of particle diameters, applying pressure of 100-500 MPa to the combination, and exposing the combination under the pressure to a heat treatment, which has maximum temperature within 100-500 degrees C for a predetermined period for forming the electroceramic composite material (note claim 1, pages 3-4). For claim 15, the electroceramic powder can be PZT, for example (note page 12). The composite can be used for making electronic components (note page 13).
‘531 does not specifically teach to further post treat the composite material as in present claim 1. ‘531 indicates that there can be some porosity (even if low porosity) (page 12).
Peras describes how ceramics can be formed to having specific electrical properties in the ceramic mass for electrical use (note column 1, lines 10-40), where the ceramic article contains ceramic oxide, with notably 5-80 wt% TiO2 (titanium oxide) (note column 1, lines 20-30, column 2, lines 20-25). The TiO2 can be mixed in with other ceramic (such as Al2O3 and SiO2) and baked (note column 1, lines 30-20) or the TiO2 can be introduced into the base ceramic mass in a porous form by impregnation of a titanium salt such as titanium tetrachloride in a solution (so in a liquid solution of this material in a flowable form), where the porous mass can be immersed in the solution to impregnate/absorb into the pores, which can allow control of area of application (note column 2, lines 20-60). Thereafter, the mass with absorbed titanium salt would be treated with water to hydrolyze, that is react to form TiO2, which at least considering the drying described, would be in solid form, giving a metal oxide impregnated ceramic material containing solid metal oxide absorbed in the pores (note column 2, lines 20-60).
Mizukami describes how a metal salt solution that can impregnate a porous substrate can be a metal alkoxide which is then treated with water to hydroxyle the metal alkoxide to give a metal oxide that is applied to the surface of the pores of the substrate and dried (and thus would give a solid metal oxide) (note 0057), and indicates a titanium salt that can be provided in solution (so in a flowable compound state), impregnated in a porous article and that can be treated with water to form titanium oxide (TiO2, note 0051), would be titanium isopropoxide (an organometallic compound) (note 0065, 0070), which is the compound desired by present claims 2 and 21.
Rothbrust describes how impregnation/infiltration of a shaped ceramic part can be provided (note figures 1, 4, 0021-0024). The process includes introducing the shaped ceramic part into a pressure chamber and introducing flowable impregnation material also into the chamber (note figure 1, 0044, 0047, note the separate introduction of material into the chamber, which is allowed by the claims). The ceramic part is degassed by creating a vacuum/underpressure in the chamber (note 0021), where the ceramic part would be immersed in the flowable material in order to impregnate the whole article, or at least be suggested to be immersed in this material so that the desired impregnation will efficiently cover the whole article (note fill line 24 in figure 1 would appear to immerse the part 10, 0046-0048). The pressure in the chamber is elevated to an atmospheric pressure (note the venting) where the flowable material will be absorbed/impregnated into the at least part of the pores of the ceramic part (note impregnation also occurs during vacuum, note 0024, 0025, 0065 – with venting, where the chamber can be opened after venting, indicating return to atmospheric pressure—0045). The amount/thickness of the coating can be controlled by part porosity, infiltration time, viscosity of solution (note 0023), where the penetration depth can be adjusted (note 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘531 to further provide and control the amount of TiO2, for example, added and where added, such as to the outer area of the composite material, by using an infiltration process as described by present claim 1 as suggested by Peras, Mizukami and Rothbrust in order to provide desirable control of application area of TiO2 to provide desirable electrical properties, for example, where ‘531 describes how an electroceramic composite material can be formed by the process desired by present claim 14, and Peras indicates that when forming a composite ceramic material (initial ceramic material), it can be desired to provide a controlled amount of TiO2 to give desired electrical properties, and where the TiO2 can be provided by mixing in with the other ceramic composite components or can be infiltrated in as a flowable titanium salt material, with the component immersed in the salt material, which is impregnated/absorbed into the pores of the component and then treated with water so that the salt is reacted with water to form the solid TiO2 (metal oxide) in the pores of the ceramic, which allows for controlled placement of TiO2, and where Mizukami would suggest that titanium isopropoxide would be a predictably acceptable titanium salt for this infiltration purpose, giving using an organometallic compound as desired by present claims 1, 2and 21, and Rothbrust would suggest that the impregnation can be predictably an acceptably provided in a controlled fashion by introducing the shaped ceramic part/composite material into a pressure chamber and introducing flowable impregnation material (flowable organometallic compound) also into the chamber, where the composite would be degassed by creating a vacuum/underpressure in the chamber, where the composite would be immersed in the flowable material in order to impregnate the whole article, and the pressure in the chamber would elevated to an atmospheric pressure where the flowable material will be absorbed/impregnated into the at least part of the pores of the ceramic part, where the amount/thickness of the coating can be controlled by part porosity, infiltration time, viscosity of solution, where the penetration depth can be adjusted, giving a suggested impregnation process to use that gives control of the application, and by providing these features as discussed above, all features of claims 1, 2, 8 (where the impregnated metal oxide would be TiO2 as discussed above), 14, 15, 21, 26 (again with TiO2 as noted for claim 8) would be suggested.
Claims 5 and 22-23: as to further drying the metal oxide impregnated component by heating, this would be suggested by Peras (note column 2, lines 50-60), Also note Mizukami at 0065, 0070. For claim 22 as to drying at 110-130 degrees C for 1.5-3.5 hours, and claim 23 as to drying at 120 degrees C for 2 hours, Peras notes a drying step under atmospheric conditions for 24 hours (note column 2,lines 55-60) and also a heating step at 100 degrees before further baking steps (note column 2, lines 55-60, note as worded, it is not prevented by the claims to have multiple heating/drying steps). Mizukami describes how impregnated titanium oxide from titanium isporoporixde can be dried at 120 degrees C for two hours (in the claimed ranges of claims 22, 23) (note 0070). Therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the drying conditions, including temperature and time, from the teaching of Peras and Mizukami, giving values in the claimed ranges. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 6 and 24: As to the underpressure, Rothbrust suggests 20 mbar, in the claimed range of claim 6 (note 0046, 0058, 0021). Furthermore, for claim 24, Rothbrust gives suggested ranges, but generally provides for simply using a low pressure (note 0046, 0021), and therefore it would have been obvious to optimize the underpressure for the specific article treated, giving a value in the claimed range. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 9 and 27: as to removing excess flowable organometallic compound from the surface of the composite before water treatment, Rothbrust would suggest that after the impregnation treatment, infiltration material remainders (which would be the excess organometallic compound) can be removed with a towel (note 0067), and it would be suggested that this be provided before treatment with water so that reaction is not provided with undesired material, where removing with a towel can be considered wiping as desired by claim 27.
Claims 7 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘531 in view of Peras, Mizukami and Rothbrust as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-9, 21-24 and 26-27 above, and further in view of Schneider (US 2001/0033922).
Claims 7 and 25: further as to subjecting the composite material to overpressure of an absolute pressure of about 3 bar or more for a time of 2-10 minutes, before the treating with water to enhance penetration of the organometallic compound into the pores,
Schneider describes impregnating material into an article (here wood) (note 0001), where it describes using first establishing a vacuum in a chamber with the article, then filling the chamber with impregnating fluid and the re-establishing atmospheric pressure, and finally an overpressure of 7.5 bar for a period of time (note 0034), where the period of time can be 5-18 minutes, for example (note 0034, 0040), overlapping the claimed range of claim 25.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘531 in view of Peras, Mizukami and Rothbrust to further provide an overpressure after the establishing of atmospheric pressure and before the water treatment as suggested by Schneider with an expectation of providing further impregnation, since Rothbrust indicates impregnation with vacuum and then re-establishing atmospheric pressure, and Schneider indicates further providing a pressure of 7.5 bar, in the claimed range, after such a process for desired impregnation, which would be understood to further enhance penetration of the flowable compound into the pores as putting pressure on the compound which would push it towards the pores, and this would occur before the water treatment as part of the impregnation that occurs before such treatment, and further Schneider indicates time of the overpressure can be 5-18 minutes, and it would have been obvious to optimize from such a range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
WO 2015/027147, cited on the IDS of February 29, 2024, indicates the desire to provide a metal oxide impregnated ceramic, with the metal oxide formed by hydrolyzing (note the abstract, pages 2-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered.
(A) Note the new 35 USC 112 rejections the adjustment to the 35 USC 103 rejections due to the amendments to the claims.
(B) As to the 35 USC 103 rejections using Hannu as the primary reference, applicant argues that one would not combine the cited references, with none of the references teaching or suggesting post treating an already formed composite by impregnation with a precursor that is subsequently converted to an inorganic oxide binder at low temperature, where Peras and Rothbrust provide high temperature sintering, where Mizukami is concerned merely with coating substrates rather than filling pore structures. It is indicated that Hannu is concerned with forming a lithium molybdate ceramic composite without post treatment by impregnation, and Peras and Rothbrust both rely on high temperature sintering and in Peras to treatments that release hydrochloric acid, and this would discourage using a low temperature process, and Mizukami does not address pore filling. And if combined, the references would not suggest impregnating an already formed composite with a precursor that is subsequently covered to inorganic oxide binder with avoiding high temperature sintering.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. As to the providing an already formed ceramic composite and impregnating with TiO2 for example, as worded in the claims, note claim 1, it is desired by the claim to impregnate the electroceramic composite with solid metal oxide (such as TiO2). Hannu forms such as initial composite, which can be lithium molybdate (actually claimed by present claim 13) based (note 0007), but it is not limited to this, where a variety of ceramics can be used (note 0008, 0016), where ceramic-ceramic composites can be made with materials such as lithium molybdate, etc. and also contain material such as PZT, etc. (note 0026), where it is also indicted to have material such as TiO2 present (note 0016). Peras indicates how TiO2 can be provided in a ceramic substrate to help give desired electrical properties and how the TiO2 can be mixed in with other ceramic in forming the article or also impregnated into a base ceramic mass that initially baked so giving a base ceramic article, by impregnating with Ti salt solution and hydrolyzing to form TiO2 in the pores (note column 1, lines 30-45, column 2, lines 20-60), which gives the suggestion that as an alternative to mixing TiO2 in the ceramic article to be formed, the TiO2 can be provided in pores of the initially formed article by impregnating a titanium salt solution in the pores and hydrolyzing. Thus, the suggestion from Peras is to provide the impregnation of the already formed composite with the precursor that is converted to metal oxide. It is also indicated that there is a benefit of impregnation process of allowing treating specific areas of the substrate article (note column 2, lined 35-45 of Peras). Mizukami and Rothbrust provide further details on materials to use and how to impregnate. As to the references not providing converting to metal oxide at a low temperature, as claimed in claim 1, no temperature requirements are present, so the converting could be at low or high temperature. Furthermore, as to the claims with specific temperature requirements as to “drying” after impregnation, claim 5 generally has heating, with no temperature limit, and claims 22-23 are the only claims that have a temperature to use after the impregnation for the drying. Peras describes a drying at atmospheric conditions then a heating at 100 degrees C, before higher temperature sintering (note claim 2, lines 50-60), where it is not prevented by the claims from having first drying steps at lower temperature and then higher temperature sintering. Rothbrust also notes that there can be drying at a lower temperature before further sintering (note 0067-0068). Additionally, Mizukami describes drying the impregnated suggested titanium isopropoxide material at 120 degree C, in the claimed range (note 0070). As to Mizukami not filling pore structures, as described Mizukami indicates how impregnation, which would therefore fill pores rather than sit only on surface, occurs (note 0070, 0057). Therefore, all the features as actually claimed are suggested.
(C) As to the 35 USC 103 rejections using ‘531 as the primary reference, applicant similarly argues that ‘531 does not indicate impregnation as a post treatment step, or conversion of an impregnated precursor to inorganic oxide binder, with Peras and Rothbrust and Mizukami not applying for the same reasons as discussed when using Hannu above.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. While ‘531 does not describe the post treatment impregnation, it indicates the desire to form an electroceramic composite to form electronic components (as discussed in the rejection above), where Peras indicates how TiO2 can be provided in ceramic composites to provide specific electrical properties for use, where the TiO2 can be mixed in with the base ceramic material, or as discussed with regard to the rejections using Hannu above, can also be impregnated from the titanium salt solution and hydrolyzed to form TiO2 in pores of the article. Thus, the suggestion from Peras is to provide the impregnation of the already formed composite with the precursor that is converted to metal oxide, in order to help provide desirable electrical properties to the ceramic. It is also indicated that there is a benefit of impregnation process of allowing treating specific areas of the substrate article (note column 2, lined 35-45 of Peras). Mizukami and Rothbrust provide further details on materials to use and how to impregnate. As to the references not providing converting to metal oxide at a low temperature, as claimed in claim 1, no temperature requirements are present, so the converting could be at low or high temperature. Furthermore, as to the claims with specific temperature requirements as to “drying” after impregnation, claim 5 generally has heating, with no temperature limit, and claims 22-23 are the only claims that have a temperature to use after the impregnation for the drying. Peras describes a drying at atmospheric conditions then a heating at 100 degrees C, before higher temperature sintering (note claim 2, lines 50-60), where it is not prevented by the claims from having first drying steps at lower temperature and then higher temperature sintering. Rothbrust also notes that there can be drying at a lower temperature before further sintering (note 0067-0068). Additionally, Mizukami describes drying the impregnated suggested titanium isopropoxide material at 120 degree C, in the claimed range (note 0070). As to Mizukami not filling pore structures, as described Mizukami indicates how impregnation, which would therefore fill pores rather than sit only on surface, occurs (note 0070, 0057). Therefore, all the features as actually claimed are suggested. As to the argument that advantages of using the treatment claimed, the desired pore filling with TiO2 is provided by the suggested process as discussed above, and therefore advantages of using such a process would also occur. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The new claims are rejected for the reasons provide din the rejections above.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights