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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 12, 14, 16, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutler et al. (US 2007/0166570).
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7: Cutler teaches a composition for joining two bodies to form a gas-tight structure (Abst.; ¶ 0002), comprising: 40-75 vol% ceramic nanoparticles (¶¶ 0022, 0052) and the remainder organic components, such as a dispersant and a solvent (¶¶ 0022, 0041). Cutler further explains that the amount of ceramic nanoparticles in the composition is adjusted to achieve a desired packing density (¶ 0052). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected approximately 70 wt% ceramic nanoparticles, 0.5-1 wt% dispersant and the remainder solvent with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 12, 23 and 25: Cutler further teaches applying the composition at a joining interface between a first and a second ceramic part and heating the combination to join and densify the parts by filling the pores of the parts (¶¶ 0022, 0065).
Claim 14: Cutler teaches that the thickness of the material applied can be adjusted based on the desired amount of joining material needed (¶ 0069). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected 0.5 ml per cm2 depending on the amount of material needed to achieve the joining.
Claim 16: Cutler teaches a joining temperature of 1100-2100˚C, e.g. (¶ 0070). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a temperature of 1100-1400˚C with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5, 8-9, 11, 17-18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutler in light of Kolios et al. (US 2018/0134629).
Claim 5: Cutler does not teach any of the claimed ceramic materials, instead teaching that the ceramic material used to form the gas-tight joined members should match the material of the first and/or second ceramic parts used to form the gas-tight joint (¶ 0022, e.g.). Kolios teaches a gas-tight ceramic joint (Abst.) and explains that suitable ceramic materials for forming such a joint include SiAlON and spinel (¶ 0052). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected SiAlON or spinel as the ceramic nanoparticle material in Cutler with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 8-9 and 11: Cutler teaches that the size of the ceramic nanoparticles is selected to achieve a desired packing density (¶ 0052). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected particles sizes of 3-50 nm, 13-21 nm or 15-50 nm with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 17-18, 21 and 22: Cutler further teaches that the joining temperature is selected based on the sintering temperature of the ceramic parts (¶ 0070) and that the joining time is dictated by the desired densification (¶ 0072). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a joining temperature of 1000-1300˚C or 900-1125˚C and a joining time of 120-420 minutes depending on the material selected and the desired densification with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 5, 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutler in light of Traggis et al. (US 2010/0272964).
Claim 5: Cutler does not teach any of the claimed ceramic materials, instead teaching that the ceramic material used to form the gas-tight joined members should match the material of the first and/or second ceramic parts used to form the gas-tight joint (¶ 0022, e.g.). Traggis teaches a gas-tight joint between two ceramic parts and explains that suitable materials include spinel and ZnS (¶¶ 0038, 0042). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected spinel or ZnS as the material in Cutler with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 10: Cutler teaches that the size of the ceramic nanoparticles is selected to achieve a desired packing density (¶ 0052). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected particles sizes of 15-50 nm with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 19 and 20: Cutler further teaches that the joining temperature is selected based on the sintering temperature of the ceramic parts (¶ 0070) and that the joining time is dictated by the desired densification (¶ 0072). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a joining temperature of 800-1185˚C and a joining time of 60-240 minutes depending on the material selected and the desired densification with the predictable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights