DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group l, a mold, claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17-19, 22, 27 and 32 in the reply filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 36, 37 and 41-48 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 03/07/2024 and 07/21/2025 have been 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, 2, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17-19, 22, 27 and 32 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 the limitation “preferably” in line 10 which would be interpreted as “for example”, “or the like”, or “such as”. The phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “greater than a melting or softening temperature of the ceramic matrix”, and the claim also recites “greater than a melting or softening temperature of the ceramic matrix and preferably less than a melting or degradation temperature of the ceramic particles” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Similarly, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “from about 400° C. to about 1000° C.”, and the claim also recites “from about 500° C. to about 700° C.” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The remaining dependent claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 15, 17-19, 22, 27 and 32 are also rejected under 112 (b) because they depend from, and thus include all the limitations of rejected claim 1.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2018/0370858-of record) in view of Shores et al. (US 2020/0050119) and Zhang et al. (US 2018/0249593-of record).
With respect to claim 1, Yu teaches a process for manufacturing a molded ceramic composite material (“a method for making a housing for a communication device”, Pa [0024]), the process comprising:
(a) providing a preform having a first configuration and having two opposed surfaces, the preform comprising a ceramic composite material, the material comprising ceramic particles within a ceramic matrix (“making a flat sample from a zirconia ceramic material”, Pa [0026]; “the zirconia ceramic powder is added with a powder selected from a group consisting of yttrium oxide powder, titanium oxide powder, silicon oxide powder, and combinations thereof; the solvent is alcohol or toluene; the binder is B98, B76 or B79.”, Pa [0029]-[0036]);
(b) thermoforming the preform (“performing hot bending”, Pa [0027]), comprising the steps of:
(i) heating the preform in a mold to a temperature greater than a melting or softening temperature of the ceramic matrix (“the hot bending is performed at a temperature in a range of 700-1000° C. for 0-5 min, preferably, under a pressure in a range of 0-1000N, such that a more compact ceramic structure can be obtained.”, Pa [0028]), and
(ii) applying a load to the mold, whereby the first configuration of the preform within the mold is converted to a second configuration to form the molded ceramic composite material (“performing hot bending under pressure when increasing or decreasing the temperature, so as to obtain a housing for a mobile communication device having a same profile as a profile of a mold cavity of the mold under comprehensive action of the temperature and pressure”, Pa [0027]).
Even though Yu does not explicitly teaches (c) cooling the molded ceramic composite material in the mold; and (d) removing the molded ceramic composite material from the mold, one would have found it obvious to perform these claimed steps in order to obtain the final product.
Yu further teaches that at present, the maturely applied metal housing and nano-molding process cannot satisfy the needs for 5g signal, and a glass has a good transmittance for signals but low strength, and thus easily breaks when falling off and the ceramics have become the most promising housing material of the next generation (Pa [0002]), namely, Yu discloses a good transmittance for signals and good strength for the housing for a mobile communication device, but does not explicitly teach that the ceramic particles have a platelet configuration disposed in a parallel alignment transverse to a thickness direction extending between the two opposed surfaces of the first configuration.
In the same field of endeavor, fabricating three-dimensional objects out of a variety of materials, including polymers, metals and ceramics (Pa [0003]), Shores teaches that various physical properties of the composite material can be improved or manipulated via the alignment of anisotropic inclusions (e.g., fibers or other particles), thus creating a desired property that is unique from the surrounding matrix, in one embodiment, to improve structural characteristics of parts experiencing high mechanical loads, an inclusion with high tensile strength and stiffness can be aligned in the direction of principal stress (Pa [0006] and [0029]). Shores further teaches that an anisotropic inclusion alignment apparatus 330 includes any device, or component of a device, which actively or passively aligns anisotropic inclusions within a fluid, molten plastic, or powder matrix, including devices using electric fields, magnetic fields, ultrasound, vibration, and/or shearing to align the anisotropic inclusions (Pa [0038]), and the anisotropic inclusions are aligned with their long axis tangent to the curve of the tube, i.e., theta (in-plane) alignment (Pa [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu with the teachings of Shores to align the inclusions with their long axis with in-plane alignment in order to improve structural characteristics of parts experiencing high mechanical loads.
Shores teaches that anisotropic inclusions are such as fibers or other particles (Pa [0006]), but is silent to a platelet configuration.
In the same field of endeavor, methods for the manufacture of thermal interfaces suitable for use in electronic devices, Zhang teaches aligning coated magnetic, thermally conductive particles in composites using both magnetic and vibrational means (Pa [0022]), and that the particles can be flakes, platelets, sheets (e.g., nanosheets), fibrous, rods, whiskers, tubes, or irregular in shape (Pa [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu in view of Shores with the teachings of Zhang to provide the ceramic powder in the form of platelet in order to align the platelets with their long axis with in-plane alignment in order to improve structural characteristics of parts experiencing high mechanical loads, since it has been held that Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
With respect to claim 2, Yu as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the step of providing the preform comprises (“step S1 includes”, Pa [0029]):
(a-1) providing a slurry comprising a plurality of the ceramic particles in a polymeric binder (“step S11, slurry mixing: mixing a zirconia ceramic powder, a solvent, and a binder to form a mixed slurry”, Pa [0030]);
(a-3) forming the slurry in a layer on a stage or in a preform mold, wherein the ceramic particles become aligned in the parallel alignment (“tape-casting the mixed slurry to obtain a monolayer base membrane band with a thickness of 0-1 mm, then making a plurality of laminated membrane bands with different thicknesses on the base membrane band by lamination”, Pa [0032]); and
(a-4) consolidating the polymeric binder to form a solid green body comprising the ceramic particles maintained in the parallel alignment (“isostatic pressing, and then cutting the membrane bands to form a plurality of laminated bodies with certain sizes”, Pa [0032]).
(a-5) debinding the solid green body at a first temperature at which the polymeric binder decomposes, leaving a ceramic body comprising the ceramic matrix and the ceramic particles (“step S131, debinding at a temperature in a range of 300-600° C. for 20-50 h”, Pa [0034]); and
(a-6) sintering the ceramic body at a second temperature greater than the first temperature, whereby the ceramic particles remain in the parallel alignment in the ceramic matrix (“step S132, sintering at a temperature in a range of 1200-1500° C. for 0-5 h with a heating rate of 0-5° C./min”, Pa [0035]).
Shores as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches (a-2) vibrating the slurry to provide a suspension in which the slurry fluidizes (“an anisotropic inclusion alignment apparatus 330 includes any device, or component of a device, which actively or passively aligns anisotropic inclusions within a fluid, molten plastic, or powder matrix, including devices using …ultrasound, vibration… to align the anisotropic inclusions (Pa [0038]).
With respect to claim 6, Yu as applied to claim 2 above further teaches that the polymeric binder is a polymerizable resin, and wherein the polymerizable resin comprises thermoplastic polymer (“the binder is PVB1 or PVB2”, Pa [0016]; “the binder is B98, B76 or B79”, Pa [0031]).
With respect to claim 8, Yu as applied to claim 2 teaches that the zirconia ceramic powder is added with a powder selected from a group consisting of yttrium oxide powder, titanium oxide powder, silicon oxide powder, and combinations thereof; the solvent is alcohol or toluene; the binder is B98, B76 or B79 (Pa [0031]), but does not explicitly teach that the polymeric binder is an oxygen-donating material and wherein, in the consolidating step of (a-4), the polymeric binder donates oxygen for seeding an oxidation process at the ceramic particles.
Zhang as applied in the combination regarding claim 2 above further teaches that the flowable composition can comprise a thermoplastic polymer, and examples of thermoplastic polymers that can be used include poly(C1-6 alkyl)acrylates and poly(C1-6 alkyl)methacrylates (Pa [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu with the teachings of Zhang to substitute poly(C1-6 alkyl)acrylates or poly(C1-6 alkyl)methacrylates for Yu’s binder for the purpose of forming the ceramic composite part, since it has been held that where the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)). In this modification, poly(C1-6 alkyl)acrylates or poly(C1-6 alkyl)methacrylates are oxygen-donating materials such that in the consolidating step of (a-4), the polymeric binder donates oxygen for seeding an oxidation process at the ceramic particles.
With respect to claim 10, Shores as applied in the combination regarding claim 2 above further teaches that the step (a-2) of vibrating the slurry occurs before the step of forming the slurry in the layer, during the step (a-3) of forming the slurry in the layer, after the step (a-3) of forming the slurry in the layer, or a combination thereof (“The print files or individual print instructions are then sent to a 3D printer control board 325, which interacts with the printer components, including an anisotropic inclusion alignment apparatus 330. This includes any device, or component of a device, which actively or passively aligns anisotropic inclusions within a fluid, molten plastic, or powder matrix, including devices using electric fields, magnetic fields, ultrasound, vibration, and/or shearing to align the anisotropic inclusions. Additional printer components may include motors, control apparatus for temperature 335 and material handling, and an apparatus 340 to consolidate the matrix material through polymerization, sintering, or other method.”, Pa [0038]).
With respect to claim 14, Yu as applied to claim 1 further teaches that in thermoforming step (b), the preform is heated to a temperature from about 400° C. to about 1000° C. (“the hot bending is performed at a temperature in a range of 700-1000° C.”, Pa [0028]).
With respect to claim 15, Yu as applied to claim 1 further teaches that in step (b) (ii) of applying the load, the load stress ranges from about 50 kPa to about to 100 MPa, or from about 500 kPa to 5 MPa. (“the hot bending is performed …under a pressure in a range of 0-1000N, such that a more compact ceramic structure can be obtained.”, Pa [0028]). In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
With respect to claims 17 and 18, Yu as applied to claim 1 further teaches in thermoforming step (b), placing the flat sample in a predesigned mold for a housing for a mobile communication device, performing hot bending under pressure when increasing or decreasing the temperature, so as to obtain a housing for a mobile communication device having a same profile as a profile of a mold cavity of the mold under comprehensive action of the temperature and pressure (Pa [0027]), but does not explicitly teaches that the mold comprises a negative surface and a positive surface, and each surface includes at least one surface feature having a feature size of about 1 mm or less in any dimension/ said feature size is about 200 μm or less in any dimension. However, one would have found it obvious to form the predesigned mold having a negative surface and a positive surface in order to manufacturing a housing for a mobile communication device.
With respect to claim 22, Yu as applied to claim 1 further teaches that the zirconia ceramic powder is added with a powder selected from a group consisting of yttrium oxide powder, titanium oxide powder, silicon oxide powder, and combinations thereof; the solvent is alcohol or toluene; the binder is B98, B76 or B79 (Pa [0031]), but does not explicitly teach that the ceramic matrix comprises boron oxide, silicon dioxide, glass flake, silver coated glass flake, a lithium oxide-silica mixture, a magnesium oxide-silica mixture, or a combination thereof.
Zhang as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the flowable composition can comprise a thermoplastic polymer, and examples of thermoplastic polymers that can be used include poly(C1-6 alkyl)acrylates and poly(C1-6 alkyl)methacrylates (Pa [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu with the teachings of Zhang to substitute poly(C1-6 alkyl)acrylates or poly(C1-6 alkyl)methacrylates for Yu’s binder for the purpose of forming the ceramic composite part, since it has been held that where the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)). In this modification, poly(C1-6 alkyl)acrylates or poly(C1-6 alkyl)methacrylates are oxygen-donating materials such that silicon oxide powder turns to silicon dioxide by an oxidation process.
With respect to claim 32, Yu as applied to claim 1 further teaches that the molded ceramic composite material is configured as an encapsulant (“a housing for a communication device”, Pa [0024]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2018/0370858-of record) in view of Shores et al. (US 2020/0050119) and Zhang et al. (US 2018/0249593-of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rapidmade (“Thermoforming and Vacuum Forming Design for Manufacturing”, accepted on 08012020).
With respect to claim 19, Yu as applied to claim 1 teaches thermoforming step (b) (“hot bending”) under pressure and temperature (Pa [0028]), but does not explicitly teach that the mold has a maximum draw ratio of feature height to feature width of about 1 to 1.
Rapidmade relates to thermoforming design for manufacturing and further teaches that when designing a part to be thermoformed, draw ratio, or the proportion of depth to the width of the part, is one of the most important considerations, the depth of any cavity cannot exceed a 4:3 ratio of depth to width, and for optimal results, we recommend keeping as close to a 1:1 ratio as possible (page 2, Draw Ratio).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu with the teachings of Rapidmade to design the mold with the draw ratio of 1:1 for the purpose of optimal results of thermoforming.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2018/0370858-of record) in view of Shores et al. (US 2020/0050119) and Zhang et al. (US 2018/0249593-of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xie et al. (US 2015/0232390).
With respect to claim 27, Yu as applied to claim 1 further teaches placing the flat sample in a predesigned mold for a housing for a mobile communication device, performing hot bending under pressure when increasing or decreasing the temperature, so as to obtain a housing for a mobile communication device having a same profile as a profile of a mold cavity of the mold under comprehensive action of the temperature and pressure (Pa [0027]), but does not explicitly teaches that the molded ceramic composite material has a thickness from about 0.05 mm to about 10 mm, or from about 0.1 mm to about 3 mm.
In the same field of endeavor, a method for making a thin ceramic part for the exterior of a portable device, Xie teaches that the thin ceramic exterior part can have a thickness of about 0.6 mm to about 1.5 mm (Pa [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu with the teachings of Xie to design the molded ceramic part with the thickness taught by Xie in order to make the thin ceramic part for the exterior of a portable device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights