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 I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 09/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 09/03/2026.
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a porosity of 15% or less” is not clear. It is not clear if this refers to a volumetric apparent porosity, or a volumetric total porosity.
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US20230125965, hereinafter referred to as Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang makes obvious a boehmite structure, comprising: a plurality of boehmite particles where adjacent boehmite particles are bonded to each other (See Zhang at [0033], disclosing boehmite), wherein a boehmite crystallite size is 10 nm or less (see Zhang at [0026], disclosing an average particle size of the ceramic particles is 10 nm to 20 μm, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05), and the boehmite structure has a porosity of 15% or less (see Zhang at [0086], disclosing the porosity of the insulation layer is 10% to 60%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang makes obvious inorganic oxide particles (see Zhang at [0106], disclosing zinc oxide).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang makes obvious an average particle size of the inorganic oxide particles is 5 µm or less (see Zhang at [0026], disclosing an average particle size of the ceramic particles is 10 nm to 20 μm, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang makes obvious the inorganic oxide particles comprise silicon (See Zhang at [0099], disclosing silicon).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP2019199515A with reference to machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Mori.
Zhang and Mori do not disclose or make obvious the subject matter of instant claims 2, 4 and 6-7. Zhang and Mori do not disclose or make obvious a flexural strength measured in accordance with JIS T6526 is 50 MPa or more per instant claim 2. Zhang and Mori do not disclose or make obvious a boehmite phase is an indefinite shape crystal per instant claim 4. Zhang and Mori do not disclose or make obvious a Vickers hardness of the inorganic oxide particles is 10 GPa or less per instant claim 6. Zhang and Mori do not disclose or make obvious an elastic modulus of the inorganic oxide particles is 320 GPa or less per instant claim 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights