DETAILED ATIONNotice 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 .
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges that the amended claim set, and drawings provided correct the issues noted by the previous office action of (5 – 9 – 2025). All of the previous objections, , drawings objections and one of the 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on (6 – 23 – 2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Neither Jiang, Xing, and Yang employ the specific sintering aid system (industrial-grade sodium silicate and zirconia) disclosed and claimed here. Namely, Jiang does not mention sodium water glass.
Neither Jiang, Xing, and Yang teach the newly amended features of regulating pore structure and surface properties solely by controlling molding pressure and sintering conditions.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Jiang / Jiang as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
As detailed on (Pg. 2 i.e. Pg. 26126), Jiang states that sodium water glass is a kind of soluble sodium silicate that is the most versatile product among soluble silicates. As such, sodium water glass and Sodium Silicate are understood to synonyms for the same compound, i.e., formula Na2xSiyO2y+x or (Na2O)x·(SiO2)y. Furthermore, a screenshot from Jiang discussing the use of Sodium water glass directly is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
238
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that Jiang teaches that the green bodies were formed under an axial pressure of 8 MPa. As such, the pressure is understood to be disclosed and controlled and regulated to a particular value. Jiang adding that after formation the green bodies are sintered at different temperatures (600 – 1100 °C) and Xing et al. (US 20170283329 A1) which was used to teach the various conditions for sintering conditions notes that the various ramping rates and temperatures are “set”. As such, it is understood that that the kiln / furnace utilized to sinter the green bodies is programable and thus the conditions are regulated and controlled.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Jiang / Jiang as modified.
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.
Claim(s) 1 & 8 – 11 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(s) 1 & 8 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Currently, claim 1 reads “…to obtain a SiC membrane with a different pore structure and surface properties.”. However, it is unclear from the claim language regarding the different pore structure and surface properties this is relative / in comparison to what? The starting SiC aggregate? Or sintering aid? Etc. Currently, it is unclear how the different pore structure and surface properties obtained are defined.
Claim(s) 8 recites the limitation "the mesh number". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 & 9 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in further view of Jiang et al. (Lower Temperature Sintering of Porous SiC, 2020, hereinafter Jiang) with evidence provided by Xing et al. (US 20170283329 A1, hereinafter Xing) in view of Erdemir et al. (Synthesis of SiC Nanoparticles…, 2019, hereinafter Erdemir) and in further view of in view Yang et al. (Preparation of Highly Stable Porous SiC…, 2017, hereinafter Yang)Regarding claim 1,
A method for one-step regulation of a pore structure and surface properties of a silicon carbide (SiC) membrane, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
(1) weighing SiC aggregate with an average particle size of 5 µm and
a sintering aid
at a certain mass ratio and
mixing them for a certain time in a ball mill or a three-dimensional mixer to ensure uniform mixing and obtain mixed powder A;
screening the mixed powder A with a sieve to obtain mixed powder B with a uniform particle size;
fully mixing the mixed powder B with a binder to obtain mixed powder C;
(2) making the mixed powder C into a green body of a certain shape under a certain molding pressure; and
(3) putting the green body in a furnace, and
carrying out in- situ sintering reaction according to a certain sintering procedure to obtain a SiC membrane with a different pore structure and surface properties by regulating the molding pressure and sintering procedure;
wherein the sintering aid in step (1) is a compound sintering aid of industrial grade sodium silicate and
zirconia,
with industrial grade sodium silicate accounting for 12% of the mass of the mixed powder A and
zirconia accounting for 10% of the mass of the mixed powder A;
the speed of the ball mill or three-dimensional mixer used for mixing powder being 100 rpm to 500 rpm, and
the milling time being 2 h;
wherein the molding pressure in step (2) for regulating the green body is 8 MPa to 16 MPa;
wherein the sintering procedure in step (3) is to:
raising temperature from room temperature to 100 °C
at a rate of 0.5 °C /min to 2 °C/min,
then raising temperature to 600 °C to 1,000°C at
a rate of 2 °C/min to 4 °C/min,
holding the temperature for 1 h to 4 h, and
reducing the temperature naturally to room temperature.
Jiang teaches the following:
(Pg. 2, 2.2 Preparation of the SiC Ceramic Membrane, ¶1) teaches that SiC powder was ball milled with NaA(r) at various weight %. As such, the SiC is understood to be weighed. (Pg. 2, 2.1 Materials, ¶1) teaches that the raw material was a green α-SiC powder with a particle size of ~ 5 μm.
(Pg. 2, 2.1 Materials, ¶1) teaches that NaA zeolite residues that acted as a sintering aid.
(Pg. 2, 2.2 Preparation of the SiC Ceramic Membrane, ¶1) teaches that SiC powder was ball milled with NaA(r) at various weight %, thus changing the mass ratios between the two across various samples fabricated.
(Pg. 2, 2.2 Preparation of the SiC Ceramic Membrane, ¶1) teaches that SiC powder was ball milled with NaA(r) in a polypropylene jar for 2 h.
& f.) Pg. 2, 2.2 Preparation of the SiC Ceramic Membrane, ¶1) After sieving, an 8 wt % PVA solution was added to the mixture. As such, sieving the ball milled powder followed by the addition of a binder is understood to be disclosed.
(Pg. 2, 2.2 Preparation of the SiC Ceramic Membrane, ¶1) teaches that the mixture was shaped into cylinders and stripped green bodies under an axial pressure of 8 MPa.
& i.) (Pg. 2, 2.2 Preparation of the SiC Ceramic Membrane, ¶1) teaches that the samples were sintered. Highlighting evidence from Xing ([0015]) teaches that the green body b is placed in a high-temperature furnace to sinter. Accordingly, obtaining a SiC membrane with a different pore structure and surface properties is understood to be a result of the fabrication method / process that the SiC membrane undergoes. Consequently, due to Xing disclosing a SiC membrane with the same structure / composition (SiC, Sintering Aid and Binder) and the process that exemplifies applicant’s disclosed method (ball milling, sieving, mixing, and sintering). The SiC membrane fabricated by Xing is understood to comprise the same structure and undergo the same disclosed method, thus resulting in a SiC membrane comprising different pore structure and surface properties. Accordingly, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a furnace for sintering as taught by Xing, due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known sintering device, for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Xing. Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "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), MPEP 2143.
(Pg. 2, Introduction, ¶2) sodium water glass is a kind of soluble sodium silicate that is the most versatile product among soluble silicates
(Abstract) teaches that zirconia acted as a sintering aid.
(Pg. 2, 2.1 Materials, Table 2) shows the composition of various samples comprising 4 to 14 % of the sodium water glass / soluble sodium silicate. As such, the range of the soluble sodium silicate is understood to overlap with applicant’s range.
(Pg. 2, 2.1 Materials, Table 2) shows the composition of various samples comprising 10 % zirconia. Where 10 % zirconia is understood to fall within the range claimed by applicant.
(Pg. 2, 2.2 Preparation of the SiC Ceramic Membrane, ¶1) teaches SiC powder was ball milled with NaA(r) in a polypropylene jar for 2 h.
(Pg. 2, 2.2 Preparation of the SiC Ceramic Membrane, ¶1) teaches that the mixture, which was shaped into cylinders and stripped green bodies under an axial pressure of 8 MPa. As such, tubes / sheets are molded at a molding pressure of 8 MPa which is understood to fall within the molding pressure range claimed by applicant.
Regarding Claim 1, Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Yang and Xing teaches the above detailed, including sieving the ball milled particles, (Pg. 2, 2.2 Preparation of the SiC Ceramic Membrane, ¶1). Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Yang and Xing is silent on the ball mill being at 100 rpm to 500 rpm. In analogous art for fabricating SiC that is ball milled, Erdemir suggests details regarding optimizing ball milling speed between 100 rpm to 500 rpm, and, in this regard, Erdemir teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that it was found that milling speed is the most important parameter for the conversion of SiC particles from micro-sized to nanosized powders. The morphology and specific surface area of SiC particles are almost unchanged at the milling speed of 100 rpm. The specific surface area substantially increased from 0.0643 to 3.59 m 2/g with increasing the milling speed from 100 to 300 rpm
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a SiC article that utilizes a sintering aid comprised of NaA zeolite residue and a binder of Jiang as evidenced by Xing. By modifying and optimizing the ball milling to be at a speed of 300 rpm, as taught by Erdemir. Highlighting one would be motivated to optimize the ball milling to a speed of 300 rpm as it provides that the milling speed is the most important parameter for the conversion of SiC particles from micro-sized to nanosized powders, with the specific surface area substantially increased (i.e., making smaller particles) from 0.0643 to 3.59 m 2/g with increasing the milling speed from 100 to 300 rpm, (Abstract). Highlighting, that the milling speed is recognized as having an impact on the on the SiC particle surface area achieved (size). As such, the case law for result effective variable may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
Regarding Claim 1, Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Erdemir teaches the above detailed, including sintering the molded article. Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Erdemir is silent on the sintering schedule utilized. In analogous art for the preparation of SiC that utilizes a sintering aid comprised of NaA zeolite residue, (Abstract), Xing suggests details regarding the sintering schedule utilized and, in this regard, Xing teaches the following:
& r.) ([0018]) teaches that the first raise the temperature to 200 °C at a rate of 1-2 °C/min; Where the heating rate is understood to overlap with the range claimed by applicant.
, t.) & u.) ([0018]) teaches that the finally raise in temperature is to 1,450 °C – 1,650 °C at a rate of 3 – 3.5 °C/min and kept at the temperature point for 2 – 6 h. Where the heating rate and holding time are understood to overlap with the ranges claimed by applicant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a SiC article that utilizes a sintering aid comprised of NaA zeolite residue and a binder of Yang as modified by. By modifying the sintering schedule to comprise the above mentioned, as taught by Xing. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a sintering schedule as aforementioned as it provides for forming a SiC porous ceramic sample, ([0039]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "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), MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 1, Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Erdemir and Xing teaches the above detailed, including sintering the molded article. Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Erdemir and Xing is silent on the sintering schedule comprising a first temperature of 100 °C and a final temperature in the range of 600 °C to 1,400 °C. In analogous art for the preparation of SiC that utilizes a sintering aid comprised of NaA zeolite residue, (Abstract), Yang suggests details regarding the sintering schedule utilized and, in this regard, Yang teaches the following:
& r.) (Pg. 503, 3.1 Sintering procedure of the PSCS, ¶2) teaches that the heating rate was set as 1 °C/min from room temperature to 100 °C.
& t.) (Pg. 503 – 504, 3.1 Sintering procedure of the PSCS, ¶2) teaches Between 500 °C and 900 °C, the heating rate was set as 2 °C/min because no reaction occurred during this period. From 900 °C to the final temperature of 1200 °C, the heating rate was set as 1 °C/min for the sintering of the materials.
& v.) The final temperature was held for 4 h to complete the reaction before natural cooled to room temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a SiC article that utilizes a sintering aid comprised of NaA zeolite residue and a binder of Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Erdemir and Xing. By further augmenting the sintering schedule to comprise a first temperature of 100 °C and a final temperature in the range of 600 °C to 1,400 °C, as taught by Yang. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a sintering schedule with a first temperature of 100 °C and a final temperature in the range of 600 °C to 1,400 °C as it provides for a complete the reaction before natural cooled to room temperature, (Pg. 503 – 504, 3.1 Sintering procedure of the PSCS, ¶2). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "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), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the binder in step (1) is a polyvinyl alcohol solution with a mass concentration of 2 wt.% to 15 wt.%.
Jiang teaches the following:
(Pg. 2, 2.1 Materials, ¶1) teaches that a 8 wt% polyvinyl alcohol aqueous solution was used as a binder in the dry pressing process. (Pg. 2, 2.2 Porous SiC Ceramic Filter Fabrication, ¶1) adds that an appropriate amount of 8 wt% PVA solution was added to bind the particles, and shaped into disc (Φ30 mm × 2.1 mm) and strip (50 × 6 × 6 mm) porous SiC ceramic green bodies under an axial pressure of 8 MPa. As such, the use of polyvinyl alcohol solution with a mass concentration of 8 wt% is understood to be disclosed which falls within the range claimed by applicant, namely 2 wt % to 15 wt %.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the shape in step (2) being sheet, tube, multi-channel, slab.
Jiang teaches the following:
(Pg. 2, 2.2 Porous SiC Ceramic Filter Fabrication, ¶1) teaches that an appropriate amount of 8 wt% PVA solution was added to bind the particles and shaped into disc (Φ30 mm × 2.1 mm) and strip (50 × 6 × 6 mm) porous SiC ceramic green bodies under an axial pressure of 8 MPa. As such, the use of polyvinyl alcohol solution with a mass concentration of 8 wt% is understood to be disclosed which falls within the range claimed by applicant, namely 2 wt % to 15 wt %. As such, molding into the shape of a shaped into disc and/or strip is understood to provide for shaping into a slab or sheet, respectively.
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the SiC membrane is applied to oil-water separation and the preparation process of a water-in-oil emulsion.
Jiang teaches the following:
(Pg. 1, Introduction) teaches that compared with commercially available ceramic membrane materials for water treatment such as alumina, titania, and zirconia, silicon carbide materials have the advantages of higher surface hydrophilicity, water permeability and special negative surface charge. As such, the membrane is applied to water filtration and separation and the preparation process. However, the application of a the SiC membrane is understood to be an intended use of the article fabricated from applicant’s claimed method. Accordingly, the case law for relevance of structure in method claims may be recited. Where, note that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structural limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure, Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31.
B.) Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in further view of Jiang with evidence provided by Xing in view of Erdemir in view of in view Yang and in further view of ISM (Mesh and Micron Sizes, 2020, hereinafter ISM)
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the mesh number of the sieve in step (1) is 50 mesh to 100 mesh.
Regarding Claim 8, Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Erdemir, Xing and Yang teaches the above detailed, including sieving the powders. Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Erdemir Xing and Yang is silent on the sieve in step (1) is 50 mesh to 100 mesh. In analogous art for the preparation of particles that are sieved, (Abstract), ISM suggests details regarding the sieve being 50 mesh to 100 mesh, and, in this regard, Yang teaches the following:
As detailed in (Pg. 1, Table 1) ISM provides for a mesh range from 35 mesh to 635 mesh showing that at each mesh size a different correspond micron particle is provided. As such, optimizing and tailoring the mesh size is understood to impact the size of particle that are allowed to pass through the mesh / openings of the mesh. Accordingly, the mesh size is understood to be a result effective variable that dictates the size of particle used for further process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a SiC article that utilizes a sintering aid comprised of NaA zeolite residue and a binder of Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Erdemir, Xing and Yang. By further augmenting and optimizing the sieve to comprise a mesh size of 50 mesh to 100 mesh, as taught by ISM. Highlighting, one would be motivated to optimize and utilize a mesh size of 50 mesh to 100 mesh as it provides for tailoring the size of the particles that are allowed for traverse / pass through the mesh for further process, (Pg. 1, ¶2). Additionally, the case law for result effective variable may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
C.) Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in further view of Jiang with evidence provided by Xing in view of Erdemir in view of in view Yang and in further view of Chen et al. (Highly permeable silicon carbide-alumina ultrafiltration membranes for oil-in-water…2020, hereinafter Chen)
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the SiC membrane is applied to oil-water separation and the preparation process of a water-in-oil emulsion.
Jiang teaches the following:
(Pg. 1, Introduction) teaches that compared with commercially available ceramic membrane materials for water treatment such as alumina, titania, and zirconia, silicon carbide materials have the advantages of higher surface hydrophilicity, water permeability and special negative surface charge.
Regarding Claim 11, Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Erdemir, Xing and Yang teaches the above detailed, including sieving the powders. Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Erdemir Xing and Yang is silent on the SiC membrane is applied to oil-water separation and the preparation process of a water-in-oil emulsion. In analogous art for the SiC ceramic membranes, (Abstract), Chen suggests details regarding the SiC membrane is applied to oil-water separation and the preparation process of a water-in-oil emulsion, and, in this regard, Chen teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that silicon carbide (SiC) ceramic membranes are of particular significance for wastewater treatment due to their mechanical strength, chemical stability, and antifouling ability. Currently, the membranes are prepared by SiC-particle sintering at a high temperature. Oil-in-water emulsion filtration experiments illustrated that both the reversible and irreversible fouling of the SiC-deposited UF membrane was considerably lower as compared to the pristine alumina support. As such, the implementation of SiC ceramic membranes for oil-in-water emulsion filtration is understood to be disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a SiC article that utilizes a sintering aid comprised of NaA zeolite residue and a binder of Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Erdemir, Xing and Yang. By further augmenting and implementing the SiC ceramic membranes for oil-in-water emulsion filtration, as taught by Chen. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement the SiC membrane to oil-water separation and the preparation process of a water-in-oil emulsion as it provides for ceramic membranes can be chemically cleaned under extreme conditions, after severe fouling, to recover their performance, (Introduction). Accordingly, the use of a known material, namely, SiC, in a known environment for a known purpose provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.D.) Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in further view of Jiang with evidence provided by Xing in view of Erdemir in view of in view Yang and in further view of LiqTech et al. (Highly permeable silicon carbide-alumina ultrafiltration membranes for oil-in-water…2020, hereinafter LiqTech)
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the SiC membrane is applied to oil-water separation and the preparation process of a water-in-oil emulsion.
Jiang teaches the following:
(Pg. 1, Introduction) teaches that compared with commercially available ceramic membrane materials for water treatment such as alumina, titania, and zirconia, silicon carbide materials have the advantages of higher surface hydrophilicity, water permeability and special negative surface charge.
Regarding Claim 11, Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Erdemir, Xing and Yang teaches the above detailed, including sieving the powders. Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Erdemir Xing and Yang is silent on the SiC membrane is applied to oil-water separation and the preparation process of a water-in-oil emulsion. In analogous art for the SiC ceramic membranes, (Abstract), LiqTech suggests details regarding the SiC membrane is applied to oil-water separation and the preparation process of a water-in-oil emulsion, and, in this regard, LiqTech teaches the following:
(Application areas) teaches that the silicon ceramic membranes may be utilized in various application amongst those are pre-treatment of drinking water, pre-filtration for reverse osmosis and oil emulsion separation. As such, the use of SiC membrane applied to oil-water separation and the preparation process of a water-in-oil emulsions is understood to be disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a SiC article that utilizes a sintering aid comprised of NaA zeolite residue and a binder of Jiang as evidenced by Xing in view of Erdemir, Xing and Yang. By further augmenting and implementing the SiC ceramic membranes for oil-in-water emulsion filtration, as taught by LiqTech. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement the SiC membrane to oil-water separation and the preparation process of a water-in-oil emulsion as it provides for utilizing a membrane that has a the highest flux for any membrane material and long membrane life, (Features and Benefits). Accordingly, the use of a known material, namely, SiC, in a known environment for a known purpose provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jiang et al. (Low-temperature sintering of a porous SiC ceramic filter using water glass and zirconia as sintering aids, 2020) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the fabrication of porous silicon carbide (SiC) ceramics prepared by existing reaction bonding technology requires high-temperature sintering beyond 1400 °C. We used low-cost industrial grade water glass and zirconia as sintering aids to prepare porous SiC ceramic filters to reduce the sintering temperature while improving the commerciality.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights