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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to CN202111573492.X, with a filing date of 12/29/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 7-14 in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-6 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to an apparatus (plasma assisted ceramic sintering device) (s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in reply filed on 04/03/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. The abstract contains purported merits, citing,
optimizes properties of ceramic materials.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claim 11 –applying voltage to the ceramic green body / applying a voltage to the ceramic green body; gradually increasing the voltage / gradually increasing a voltage; green body for surface treatment/ green body for a surface treatment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN1652889A (as submitted
in the IDS dated 06/20/2024) (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and
referenced herein) by Kumar et. al. (herein “Kumar”) and in further view of CN111440002A (English
language translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Wang et. al.
(herein “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 7 – Kumar teaches a ceramic sintering method comprising,
providing a ceramic green body; [0007], [0012], “…at some sintering process, for example powder (…pottery or other) can compact…the powdered material can produce the object usually known as the briquette….this kind of briquette usually points the green body …”, “to assist and frit the method including object of at least one powdered material ingredient…”. For clarity, the object is the ceramic green body.
and,
applying voltage to the ceramic green body; [0139], “Can apply electric potential to bias the object…”
thereby obtaining ceramics through sintering; [0012], “Said method also includes exposing at least one part of the object to the enough long time of a segment of in plasma body with at least one part of at least one powdered material ingredient of sintering.”
spraying plasma from a plasma jet device onto a surface of the ceramic green body for surface treatment; [0151], Fig. 10, “In addition, prior to, during or after sintering, can use for, deposit, coat at body surface according to plasma body of this invention. In an Example, can provide the coating material for plasma body. This material can be dissociated and/or spread in plasma body. Through exposing the object to plasma body including coating material, some coating material can be deposited on the surface of the object. “. Fig. 10 illustrates a plasma spray onto object 681.
While Kumar teaches an electrical potential is applied to the object (ceramic green body) [0139], Kumar does not disclose,
and gradually increasing the voltage to a target voltage;
In an analogous endeavor of using voltage to sinter a ceramic green body (lines 60-61, 66), Wang
discloses the first voltage is gradually increased from zero to 4.5kV and maintained (Fig. 6, lines 379-
390). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to gradually increase the first voltage to a target value for the sample as in
Wang for the sample in Kumar, as one would be motived to do so for the purposes of gradually
increasing the temperature of the green body, as noted by Wang (lines 400-401). As a PHOSITA would
know, initial temperature increase rate (here dictated by the voltage increase) of sintering a green
ceramic body is critical to address cracking, bowing, and warping of the ceramic green/sintered body.
While Kumar discloses “when the adequate electric current flows through the workpiece [0149] ,which indicates a current and suggest an inherent current density, Kumar does not disclose,
and maintaining a current density flowing through the ceramic green body during a preset period;
Wang further discloses (Fig. 6) a green body with a diameter (line 370) and current through the green body of 640mA for a flashing time of 30s (lines 381-382). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have maintained a current density for a period of time through the green ceramic body as in Wang for the sample in Kumar, as one would be motivated to do so that the current can sinter the ceramic body, and in this case, the ceramic body between the first electrode 14 and second electrode 181, as noted by Wang (lines 378-379).
Regarding Claim 8 - Kumar and Wang in the rejection of claim 7 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 7.
While Kumar teaches an electrical potential is applied to the object (ceramic green body) [0139], Kumar does not disclose,
a rate of voltage increase is 0.1 kV/s to 5 kV/s;
Wang discloses the first voltage is gradually increased from zero to 4.5kV and maintained (lines 379-380), where “gradually increased” is synonymous with a rate of voltage increase.
Wang discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed rate of voltage increase. It would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to optimize the rate of voltage increase, since it has been held that where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves
only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the rate of voltage increase for
the purpose of controlling the rate of temperature increase, as noted by Wang (lines 400-401). As a
PHOSITA would know, initial temperature increase rate (here dictated by the voltage increase) of
sintering a green ceramic body is critical to address cracking, bowing, and warping of the ceramic
green/sintered body. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process
parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220
F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
While Kumar discloses “when the adequate electric current flows through the workpiece” [0149], which indicates a current and suggest an inherent current density, Kumar does not disclose,
and the current density flowing through the ceramic green body maintains at 10 mA/mm2 to 150mA/mm2;
Wang further discloses a ceramic green body with a diameter of 10mm (Fig. 6, lines 37) where the current through sample is 640mA (line 381). A PHOSITA can calculate a current density of
640mA / π (52 )mm2 = 8.15mA/mm2.
Wang discloses the claimed invention except for the exact claimed range of current density. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to optimize the current density, since it has been held that where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves
only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the current density for
the purpose of accommodating different size ceramic green bodies and different ceramic material in the
ceramic green body, as a PHOSITA would know an aspect of current density is the cross-sectional area of
the sample and different ceramic materials have different electrical properties . Where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working
ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to
have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine
experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,
235.
Regarding Claim 9 - Kumar and Wang in the rejection of claim 7 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 7.
While Kumar teaches an electrical potential is applied to the object (ceramic green body) [0139], Kumar does not disclose,
the target voltage is 3 kV to 4 kV;
Wang further discloses the first voltage is gradually increased from zero to 4.5kV and maintained (target value) (lines 379-380).
Wang discloses the claimed invention except for the exact claimed target voltage. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to optimize the target voltage, since it has been held that where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves
only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the target voltage for
the purpose of accommodating different ceramic material in the
ceramic green body, as a PHOSITA would know different ceramic materials have different electrical
properties . Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process
parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding Claim 10 - Kumar and Wang in the rejection of claim 7 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 7.
Kumar teaches wherein,
the ceramic green body is connected to a power supply device; [0139], “Apply electric potential
at the object to, it biases to be can, for example AC bias and DC bias and pulse DC bias.”
While Kumar teaches connecting the green body electrically to a power supply, Kumar does not disclose,
by forming a first electrode and a second electrode on the ceramic green body;
Wang further discloses the first electrode 14 and the second electrode n are respectively fixed on both
ends of the ceramic green body 20 and the first electrode 14 and the n second electrodes are formed
on the surface of the ceramic green body 20 (lines 185-186, 194-195, Fig. 1). It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to form first and second electrodes on a ceramic green body as in Wang for the sample in
Kumar, as one would be motivated to do so in that forming electrodes on the surface of the ceramic
green body is a conventional method in the art, as noted by Wang (lines 196-197). Further, a person of
ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads
to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
While Kumar fails to disclose,
and connecting the first electrode and the second electrode to the power supply device;
Wang further discloses the power supply 12 applies the first voltage to the first electrode 14 on the
ceramic green body 20, and applies the second voltage to the n second electrodes on the ceramic green
body 20 (lines 205-207). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the power supply to the first electrode and
second electrode as in Wang for the sample in Kumar, as one would be motivated to do so
so that the power supply 12 can apply a voltage to the ceramic green body 20, as noted by Wang (lines
204-205).
Claims 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN1652889A (as submitted
in the IDS dated 06/20/2024) (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and
referenced herein) by Kumar et. al. (herein “Kumar”) and in further view of CN111440002A (English
language translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Wang et. al.
(herein “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 11 – Kumar teaches a ceramic sintering method comprising,
providing a ceramic green body; [0007], [0012], “…at some sintering process, for example powder (…pottery or other) can compact…the powdered material can produce the object usually known as the briquette….this kind of briquette usually points the green body …”, “to assist and frit the method including object of at least one powdered material ingredient…”. For clarity, the object is the ceramic green body.
and,
applying voltage to the ceramic green body; [0139], “Can apply electric potential to bias the object…”
thereby obtaining ceramics through sintering; [0012], “Said method also includes exposing at least one part of the object to the enough long time of a segment of in plasma body with at least one part of at least one powdered material ingredient of sintering.”
spraying plasma from a plasma jet device onto a surface of the ceramic green body for surface treatment; [0151], Fig. 10, “In addition, prior to, during or after sintering, can use for, deposit, coat at body surface according to plasma body of this invention. In an Example, can provide the coating material for plasma body. This material can be dissociated and/or spread in plasma body. Through exposing the object to plasma body including coating material, some coating material can be deposited on the surface of the object. “. Fig. 10 illustrates a plasma spray onto object 681.
While Kumar teaches an electrical potential is applied to the object (ceramic green body) where the electrical potential can heat the object and range of voltage to do so, Kumar does not disclose,
and gradually increasing the voltage to a target voltage;
In an analogous endeavor of using voltage to sinter a ceramic green body (lines 60-61, 66), Wang
discloses the first voltage is gradually increased from zero to 4.5kV and maintained (Fig. 6, lines 379-
380). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to gradually increase the first voltage to a target value for the sample as in
Wang for the sample in Kumar, as one would be motived to do so for the purposes of gradually
increasing the temperature of the green body, as noted by Wang (lines 400-401). As a PHOSITA would
know, initial temperature ramp rate (here dictated by the voltage increase) of sintering a green ceramic
body is critical to address cracking, bowing, and warping of the ceramic green/sintered body.
While Kumar discloses “when the adequate electric current flows through the workpiece” [0149], which indicates a current and suggest an inherent current density, Kumar does not disclose,
and maintaining a current density flowing through the ceramic green body during a preset period;
Wang further discloses (Fig. 6) a green body with a diameter (line 370) and current through the green body of 640mA for a flashing time of 30s (lines 381-382). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have maintained a current density for a period of time through the green ceramic body as in Wang for the sample in Kumar, as one would be motivated to do so that the current can sinter the ceramic body, and in this case, the ceramic body between the first electrode 14 and second electrode 181, as noted by Wang (lines 378-379).
Regarding Claim 12 - Kumar and Wang in the rejection of claim 11 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 11.
While Kumar teaches an electrical potential is applied to the object (ceramic green body) [0139], Kumar does not disclose,
a rate of voltage increase is 0.1 kV/s to 5 kV/s;
Wang discloses the first voltage is gradually increased from zero to 4.5kV and maintained (lines 379-380), where “gradually increased” is synonymous with a rate of voltage increase.
Wang discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed rate of voltage increase. It would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to optimize the rate of voltage increase, since it has been held that where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves
only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the rate of voltage increase for
the purpose of controlling the rate of temperature increase, as noted by Wang (lines 400-401). As a
PHOSITA would know, initial temperature increase rate (here dictated by the voltage increase) of
sintering a green ceramic body is critical to address cracking, bowing, and warping of the ceramic
green/sintered body. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process
parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220
F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
While Kumar discloses “when the adequate electric current flows through the workpiece”[0149], which indicates a current and suggest an inherent current density, Kumar does not disclose,
and the current density flowing through the ceramic green body maintains at 10 mA/mm2 to 150mA/mm2;
Wang further discloses a ceramic green body with a diameter of 10mm (Fig. 6, lines 37) where the current through sample is 640mA (line 381). A PHOSITA can calculate a current density of
640mA / π (52 )mm2 = 8.15mA/mm2.
Wang discloses the claimed invention except for the exact claimed range of current density. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to optimize the current density, since it has been held that where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves
only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the current density for
the purpose of accommodating different size ceramic green bodies and different ceramic material in the
ceramic green body, as a PHOSITA would know an aspect of current density is the cross-sectional area of
the sample and different ceramic materials have different electrical properties . Where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working
ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to
have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine
experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,
235.
Regarding Claim 13 - Kumar and Wang in the rejection of claim 11 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 11.
While Kumar teaches an electrical potential is applied to the object (ceramic green body) [0139], Kumar does not disclose,
the target voltage is 3 kV to 4 kV;
Wang further discloses the first voltage is gradually increased from zero to 4.5kV and maintained (target value) (lines 379-380).
Wang discloses the claimed invention except for the exact claimed target voltage. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to optimize the target voltage, since it has been held that where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves
only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the target voltage for
the purpose of accommodating different ceramic material in the
ceramic green body, as a PHOSITA would know different ceramic materials have different electrical
properties . Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process
parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding Claim 14 - Kumar and Wang in the rejection of claim 11 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 11.
Kumar teaches wherein,
the ceramic green body is connected to a power supply device; [0139], “Apply electric potential
at the object to, it biases to be can, for example AC bias and DC bias and pulse DC bias.”
While Kumar teaches connecting the green body electrically to a power supply, Kumar does not disclose,
by forming a first electrode and a second electrode on the ceramic green body;
In an analogous endeavor of using voltage to sinter a ceramic green body (lines 60-61, 66), Wang
discloses the first electrode 14 and the second electrode n are respectively fixed on both ends of the
ceramic green body 20 and the first electrode 14 and the n second electrodes are formed on the
surface of the ceramic green body 20 (lines 185-186, 194-195, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
form first and second electrodes on a ceramic green body as in Wang for the sample in Kumar, as one
would be motivated to do so in that forming electrodes on the surface of the ceramic green body
is a conventional method in the art, as noted by Wang (lines 196-197). Further, a person of ordinary skill
has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the
anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense."
KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
While Kumar fails to disclose,
and connecting the first electrode and the second electrode to the power supply device;
Wang further discloses the power supply 12 applies the first voltage to the first electrode 14 on the
ceramic green body 20, and applies the second voltage to the n second electrodes on the ceramic green
body 20 (lines 205-207). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the power supply to the first electrode and
second electrode as in Wang for the sample in Kumar, as one would be motivated to do so
so that the power supply 12 can apply a voltage to the ceramic green body 20, as noted by Wang (lines
204-205).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
NPL “Flash sintering of ZnO ceramics at 50° under an AC field” by Wang et. al. teaches the claims a green body, using a power supply and current levels.
USPGPUB 20060057016A1 by Kumar et. al. teaches a plasma and a plasma device.
U.S. Patent 10385459 by Sun et. al. teaches a green body, sintering/sintered ceramic, a voltage source connected to the sample , and electrodes formed on the green body.
USPGPUB 20130085055A1 by Raj et. al. teaches a green body, sintering/sintered ceramic, a voltage source connected to the sample , electrodes formed on the green body, voltage increased at a rate , and a current.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights