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 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)).
Claims 3-4 and 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 21, 2025.
Therefore, after the election, claims 3-4 and 16-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1-2 and 5-15 are pending for examination as filed with the preliminary amendment of February 29, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed September 9, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
French Patent 1195644 has not been considered as the French Patent was not provided.
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 2 and 5-15 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 2, “preferably liquid titanium isopropoxide” is confusing and indefinite as worded. With the use of “preferably” it is unclear if this is required or merely optional. For the purpose of examination, it is considered optional, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 5, “preferably carried out at 110 oC -130 oC for 1.5 h – 2.5 h, more preferably at 120 oC for 2 h” is confusing and indefinite as worded. With the use of “preferably” and “more preferably” it is unclear if this is required or merely optional. For the purpose of examination, it is considered optional, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 6, “preferably 200 mbar” is confusing and indefinite as worded. With the use of “preferably” it is unclear if this is required or merely optional. For the purpose of examination, it is considered optional, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 7, “or said suspension of metal or metal oxide nanoparticles” and “or the metal or metal oxide nanoparticles” lacks antecedent basis and is confusing and indefinite as what is intended. This claim depends now from claim 1 which does not have this material as listed as required (this would be in claim 3). For the purpose of examination, it is considered as not intended, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 7, “preferably subjected to the overpressure for 2-10 min” is confusing and indefinite as worded. With the use of “preferably” it is unclear if this is required or merely optional. For the purpose of examination, it is considered optional, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 8, “the metal” lacks antecedent basis and is confusing and indefinite as to what is intended. This claim depends now from claim 1 which does not have this material listed (this would be in 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.
Claim 8, “preferably one or more of Ti, Ba, TiO2, and BaO” is confusing and indefinite as worded. With the use of “preferably” it is unclear if this is required or merely optional. For the purpose of examination, it is considered optional, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 9, “or suspension of metal or metal oxide nanoparticles” is confusing and indefinite as what is intended. This claim depends now from claim 1 which does not have this material listed as required (this would be in claim 3). For the purpose of examination, it is considered as not intended, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 9, “preferably by wiping” is confusing and indefinite as worded. With the use of “preferably” it is unclear if this is required or merely optional. For the purpose of examination, it is considered optional, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 10, line 3, “is obtainable by” is confusing and indefinite as to what is intended. Is it intended that the described process steps are used to make the electroceramic composite material, or it is optional (could be obtained by this method or another method could be used). For the purpose of examination, the steps are considered required, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 11, “preferably 250 MPa” is confusing and indefinite as worded. With the use of “preferably” it is unclear if this is required or merely optional. For the purpose of examination, it is considered optional, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 12, “preferably for 16 h at a temperature of 120 oC” is confusing and indefinite as worded. With the use of “preferably” it is unclear if this is required or merely optional. For the purpose of examination, it is considered optional, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 14, line 2, “is obtainable by” is confusing and indefinite as to what is intended. Is it intended that the described process steps are used to make the electroceramic composite material, or it is optional (could be obtained by this method or another method could be used). For the purpose of examination, the steps are considered required, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 14, “major” fraction of the particles and “minor” fraction of the particles is confusing and indefinite as to what is intended. Does “major” and “minor” refer to the relative sizes of the particles, for example? Or does it refer to the amount in weight or volume or something else? And if it refers to the amount, what amount is needed to be “major” and what amount “minor”. For the purpose of examination, any understanding of “major” or “minor” is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 13 and 14, “PZT” and “KNBNNO” should be defined. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 8-13 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: 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 claim 2.
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 and 2, 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), and 10 would be suggested.
Claim 5: 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.
Claim 6: As to the underpressure, Rothbrust suggests 20 mbar, in the claimed range (note 0046, 0058, 0021).
Claim 9: 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.
Claim 11: 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 (note 0027).
Claim 12: 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).
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).
Claim 7 is 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 and 8-13 above, and further in view of Schneider (US 2001/0033922).
Claim 7: further as to subjecting the composite material to overpressure of an absolute pressure of about 3 bar or more, 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).
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.
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 and 8-13 above, 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 and 14-15 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: ‘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 claim 2.
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 and 2, 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 and 15 would be suggested.
Claim 5: 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.
Claim 6: As to the underpressure, Rothbrust suggests 20 mbar, in the claimed range (note 0046, 0058, 0021).
Claim 9: 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.
Claim 7 is 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 and 8-9 above, and further in view of Schneider (US 2001/0033922).
Claim 7: further as to subjecting the composite material to overpressure of an absolute pressure of about 3 bar or more, 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).
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.
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).
Conclusion
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