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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the scale legend on Fig. 1 is too blurry to read, Fig. 2 is blurry, the scale legend of Fig. 3 is too blurry to read, and Fig. 4 is blurry. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 7 recites “consisting in” which appears as if it should instead recite “consisting of”.
Claim 1 at line at line 15 recites “consisting in” which appears as if it should instead recite “consisting of”.
Claim 2 at line 3 recites “in its rutile form” which appears as if it should recite “in a rutile form”.
Claim 6 at lines 2-3 recites “selected among polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), latex emulsions, cellulose binder.” which appears as if it should instead recite “selected among polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), latex emulsions, and cellulose binder.”
Claim 13 at line 2 recites “in the form selected among” which appears as if it should instead recite “in a form selected from a”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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 "the starting pulverulent mineral materials" in lines 4, 8, and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, lines 4, 8, and 10 are unclear because it is unclear which of the two pulverulent mineral materials from lines 1-2 are being referenced.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the preparation consisting in" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the suspension" in 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the granules" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the desired part" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the starting alumina" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the starting titanium" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the mixture of pulverulent mineral materials" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the suspension" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the mixture of the starting pulverulent mineral materials" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "binders and plasticisers" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the suspension" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the volume fraction of the powder" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “a few hours” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a few hours” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear if 6 hours is “a few hours”, or if 4 hours is not “a few hours”.
Claim 10 twice recites the limitation "the suspension" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the granules" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 at line 2 recites the word “it”. It is unclear what “it” is referring to.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the loss angle" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the theoretical density" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 at line 3 recites “it”. It is unclear what “it” is referring to.
Claim 14 at line 4 recites “these”. It is unclear what “these” is referring to.
Claim 14, at line 5, the limitation “which is the case” is unclear. It is unclear what this limitation functionally means in terms of claim construction, and appears to be potentially extraneous language.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the electromagnetic field" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "cellulose binder" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the theoretical density" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Marco et al. (D. Di Marco et al., "Dielectric properties of alumina doped with TiO2 from 13 to 73 GHz", Journal of the European Ceramic Society, Vol. 37, No. 2., September 21, 2016, pages 641-646, hereinafter referred to as Marco). Marco is directed towards alumina powder doped with TiO2 dispersed in water with Darvan C (see Marco at Section 2). Examiner notes Darvan C is a polymethacrylate, which is a dispersant per instant claim 5. However, per instant claim 1, Marco fails to disclose or make obvious cryogenic granulation.
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