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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on November 24th, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement (i.e., Applicant indicated that Group I was elected “with/without traverse,” which is unclear, and without any supporting arguments), the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 24th, 2026.
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 6 and 14 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 6 recites the phrase “wherein the first ceramic phase and the second ceramic phase are selected from a group consisting of cordierite, mullite, alumina, aluminum titanate, feldspar, and combinations thereof”, but it is unclear if the claim is attempting to limit the first and second ceramic phases as formed of a same composition, or if the compositions are different. It is unclear if the first and second ceramic phases are “each” selected from the listed species (i.e., each independently selected), or if they are “both” selected from the listed species (i.e., both are a single specie from the claimed list). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as reciting first and second ceramic phases which are “each” selected from the listed species (i.e., each independently selected).
Claim 14 recites “a ratio of shell to at least one core is in a range from 0.5:1 to 2:1” which is incomplete and grammatically incorrect, such that the claim is rendered indefinite. It is not clear what feature is being measured to calculate the claimed ratio (i.e., if the ratio is a thickness ratio, or a mass ratio, or a number ratio, or another, alternative ratio). In addition, it is unclear if the term “shell” is referencing the shell of claim 1, or an alternatively recited shell (i.e., in the instance where a given particle has multiple shells, the claim is unclear). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claimed ratio will be interpreted as a thickness ratio, which applies to the shell of claim 1 and at least one core (i.e., any core of the at least one core) of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Backhaus-Ricoult et al (US 2014/0339744 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses a sintered porous ceramic article (i.e., a sintered ceramic article) comprising sintered particles each depicted as having a shell surrounding a core (i.e., comprising a shell surrounding at least one core), wherein, since the sintered particles are formed of ceramic, the core is considered to comprise a first ceramic phase and the shell is considered to comprise a second ceramic phase, and further, the first and second ceramic phases are depicted as different in terms of pore morphology (Backhaus-Ricoult: abstract; para. [0066]-[0068] and [0101]; Figs. 2A-2C and 13A-13C). In these regards, a comparison between Figure 7 of the present drawings (Example AEJ – 1275⁰C/8H) and Figures 13A-13C of Backhaus-Ricoult are provided on the following page for clarity (Backhaus-Ricoult: Figs. 13A-13C). As to the scope of the terms “core” and “shell” of the present claims, it is noted that paragraph [0056] of the present specification (PGPub) notes that “the cores can be distinguished from the shells by their limited, small, spherical shape,” and from Figure 7 of Applicant’s drawings, it appears that any circular region which is smaller than an overall sintered particle can be considered a core according to the present claims, and any region surrounding a core can be considered a shell according to the present claims. Note that, per Applicant’s specification, the white-encircled regions of Figure 7 denote cores.
PNG
media_image1.png
640
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
314
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
With regards to claim 2, it is noted that the selection of a “core” can include an arbitrary amount of pore volume, and therefore, depending on the selection of core, the core may include a second ceramic phase which is less dense than that of the first ceramic phase of the shell (i.e., constituting a first ceramic phase which is a lower pore volume, and therefore, is denser) (Backhaus-Ricoult: Figs. 13A-13C).
With regards to claim 3, the second ceramic phase (i.e., ceramic phase of the core) is depicted as comprising open and interconnected pores (Backhaus-Ricoult: Figs. 13A-13C).
With regards to claim 4, the first ceramic phase (i.e., ceramic phase of the shell) is depicted as comprising open and interconnected pores (Backhaus-Ricoult: Figs. 13A-13C).
With regards to claim 5, the sintered particles may include, for example, cores comprising feldspar phases, denoted in Figure 19A of Backhaus-Ricoult as bright grey, and a shell comprising an aluminum titanate phase, denoted in Figure 19A of Backhaus-Ricoult as slightly darker grey (i.e., the fist ceramic phase is a different composition than the second ceramic phase) (Backhaus-Ricoult: para. [0117]; Fig. 19A).
With regards to claim 6, the first ceramic phase comprises aluminum titanate, and the second ceramic phase comprises feldspar (Backhaus-Ricoult: para. [0117]).
With regards to claim 7, Figure 13A of Backhaus-Ricoult depicts a median pore diameter of below 2 microns (i.e., the largest pore that can be inferred from Figure 13A of Backhaus-Ricoult is just below the indicated scale of 2 microns) (Backhaus-Ricoult: Fig. 13A). In the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that the claim only requires the sintered ceramic particles to “comprise pores having a median pore size of up to 5 microns,” meaning, that the entire distribution of pores need not be used in the calculation of median pore size (i.e., a subgrouping of 3 pores, for example, can be used to calculate median pore size, and from Figure 13A of Backhaus-Ricoult, a subgrouping of 3 pores below the claimed range can be made).
With regards to claim 14, per Figure 13A of Backhaus-Ricoult, a core and shell may be arbitrarily specified, such that the thicknesses thereof have a ratio within the claimed range of from 0.5:1 to 2:1 (Backhaus-Ricoult: Figs. 13A-13C).
With regards to claim 15, the sintered ceramic article is a honeycomb structure (Backhaus-Ricoult: para. [0019])
.
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.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus-Ricoult et al as applied to claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 8, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses a sintered ceramic article as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). The sintered ceramic article of Backhaus-Ricoult may have a porosity of at least 50%, which overlaps the claimed range of at least 40%, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05 (Backhaus-Ricoult: para. [0018]).
With regards to claim 9, the sintered ceramic article of Backhaus-Ricoult has a median pore size of 10 to 30 microns, which overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 10 microns, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05 (Backhaus-Ricoult: para. [0018]).
With regards to claim 10, the sintered ceramic article of Backhaus-Ricoult has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 2x10-7 to 20x10-7 K-1, which overlaps the claimed range of 10x10-7 to 40x10-7 K-1, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05 (Backhaus-Ricoult: para. [0019]).
With regards to claim 11, the sintered ceramic article of Backhaus-Ricoult has a modulus of rupture of greater than 170 psi, which overlaps the claimed range of at least 250 psi, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05 (Backhaus-Ricoult: para. [0019]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus-Ricoult et al as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Backhaus-Ricoult et al (WO2022026664A1), hereinafter Backhaus-Ricoult ‘664.
With regards to claim 12, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses a sintered ceramic article according to claim 1 (see above discussion). Backhaus-Ricoult separately notes that either a washcoating or a catalyst may be applied to its sintered ceramic article (Backhaus-Ricoult: para. [0063]). However, Backhaus-Ricoult does not appear to specifically disclose a washcoating of a catalyst on its sintered ceramic particles.
Backhaus-Ricoult ‘664 is directed to a sintered ceramic article comprising a plurality of sintered porous particles, wherein the sintered porous particles are depicted as structurally similar to the particles of Backhaus-Ricoult (i.e., having interconnected pores, and a shell and multiple cores according to the present claims) and have been washcoated with a catalytic material (Backhaus-Ricoult ‘664: para. [0080], [0096]-[0099], and [0137]; Fig. 7). Backhaus-Ricoult ‘664 teaches that by dipping its sintered ceramic article into a washcoating catalytic slurry, catalytic slurry particles are deposited due to the capillary forces produced by the interconnected pores of the sintered particles (Backhaus-Ricoult ‘664: para. [0103] and [0228]). The washcoating process of Backhaus-Ricoult ‘664 enables a homogenous distribution of particles and improved anchoring of catalyst to the sintered article (Backhaus-Ricoult ‘664: para. [0241]). Backhaus-Ricoult and Backhaus-Ricoult ‘664 are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of sintered catalytic articles formed from sintered open-pore particles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied a washcoating of catalytic material to the sintered ceramic article of Backhaus-Ricoult, in order to ensure the catalytic material of Backhaus-Ricoult is homogenous in distribution and well-anchored to the sintered ceramic article (Backhaus-Ricoult ‘664: para. [0103], [0228], and [0241]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus-Ricoult et al as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Giannantonio et al (US2008/0210901A1).
With regards to claim 13, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses a sintered article as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). However, Backhaus-Ricoult does not appear to disclose the presence of a getter of a carbon-containing gas in its second ceramic phase.
Giannantonio is directed to a getter system comprising a getter for gas sorption located within the pores of a material (Giannantonio: abstract; para. [0002]-[0004]). Giannantonio teaches that getter materials are widely used, and include known materials such as alumina, and Giannantonio teaches the introduction of getter material within porous particles which have a core/shell structure in accordance with the present claims (Giannantonio: para. [0004] and [0023]; Fig. 2). Backhaus-Ricoult and Giannantonio are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of porous ceramic particles for catalytic and filtration applications. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included the getter of Giannantonio in the second phase material of Backhaus-Ricoult, in order to allow for the absorption of undesired carbon-based gasses (i.e., to fulfill the desired inventive utility of Backhaus-Ricoult as a catalytic or absorptive material) (Giannantonio: para. [0003]-[0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights