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 .
Priority
Examiner notes a signed oath appears to be missing.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text of Fig. 1 appears blurry, and Fig. 5 appears before Fig. 4. 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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “3” at line 6 of claim 1 appears as if it should be a superscript. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 at line 2 recites “it” instead of “the homogeneous microstructured ceramic material (100)”.
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 1-22 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.
The term “similar” in claim 1, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” 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. For example, a person having ordinary skill in the arts would not know what microstructured ceramic materials are, and are not, similar to a stony coral skeleton.
The term “fine” in claim 1, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” 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. For example, a person having ordinary skill in the arts would require the limestone to be below 100 µm, or below 10 µm, in order to be “fine”.
Claim 1 recites “76% - 79% fine powder limestone” and “21% -24% binder”, however, it is unclear what units the “%” are referring to. For example, this could be mass%, mol%, volume%, etc.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" 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).
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" at lines 3, 4, and 5 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 9 recites “76% - 79% fine powder limestone”, “21.1% -22.2% binder”, and “3.7-3.8% porosity generator”, however, it is unclear what units the “%” are referring to. For example, this could be mass%, mol%, volume%, etc.
Claim 9 is rejected due to antecedent basis issues concerning the phrase “a binder” in lines 4 and 8. It is unclear if the “a binder” of line 8 is the same “a binder” of line 4, or a different “a binder”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the matrix" in lines 13 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the matrix” of lines 13 and 14 is the “ceramic material matrix” of line 11, or a different “the matrix”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the temperature curve" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the temperature” of line 18 is the “a temperature” of line 17 or “the temperature” of line 16.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the resulting material" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the material (100)" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the step of sintering the matrix (233)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, which recites “synthesizing the matrix (233)”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the matrix" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, which recites multiple iterations of matrix as detailed in the rejections above. It is unclear which matrix claim 10 line 2 is referring to.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the temperature curve" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the temperature" in lines 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the material (100)" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the steps of" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pulverized limestone" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the fractured porosity generator" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the activated porosity generator" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the ceramic material (223)" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the homogenization (220)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "such as" 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 16 recites “their water column”, however, it is unclear what “their” is referring to.
The term “regular” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “regular” 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.
The term “irregular” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “irregular” 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 unclear what is, and is not, regular or irregular.
The term “easy” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easy” 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 what is, and is not, an easy maneuver.
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 (Yin et al. CN113307577A, with reference to machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Yin). Yin is directed towards an imitation staghorn coral reef material (See Yin at the Abstract). Yun discloses 50-150 parts of white cement, 5-15 parts of chitosan, and red iron oxide. Paint 1-3 parts of curing agent and 1-3 parts of cement curing agent (See Yin at the Abstract). Per instant claim 1, Yin fails to disclose or make obvious a connected porosity between 43% and 51%. Per instant claim 9, Yin fails to disclose or make obvious 21.1% -22.2% binder and 3.7-3.8% porosity generator.
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