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 Interpretation
The term “low pressure injection molding” in claims 38, 40, and 48 is interpreted to mean injection molding carried out at a gauge pressure of less than about 10 bars, as recited in lines 11-12 of claim 40.
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 36 and 46-47 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 “suitable amount” in claim 36 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable amount” 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 how to determine what defines a suitable amount of additional solvent.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the dried or at least partially dried ceramic feedstock" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 40 only recites “at least partially dried feedstock”.
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.
Claim(s) 30-34 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behi ‘150 (US 6,262,150 B1).
Regarding claim 30, Behi ‘150 teaches:
preparing a ceramic slurry comprising one or more ceramic precursors, a temperature sensitive gelling agent, and a solvent (column 2, lines 18-23; column 3, lines 11-13)
the ceramic feedstock comprises from about 0.1 wt.% to about 2 wt.% of the temperature sensitive gelling agent (column 4, line 66-column 5, line 3).
The claimed range of percent of gelling agent overlaps the range taught by Behi ‘150. It has been held that where the claimed overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Behi ‘150 provides examples in which a slurry comprising metal precursors, a temperature sensitive gelling agent, and a solvent is prepared, and the slurry is treated under suitable conditions to obtain a dried or at least partially dried feedstock having a residual solvent content from 0.1 to 5 wt.%, based on the total weight of the feedstock (5 wt%: column 11, lines 14-15; see also column 7, lines 12-15; column 8, lines 30-32; column 9, lines 34-37). Behi ‘150 also suggests that the disclosed methods are usable with metal powders, ceramic powders, or combinations thereof (column 2, lines 19-20). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also utilize such a treating step with a ceramic slurry. Behi ‘150 further suggests that residual solvent content is a result effective variable because decreasing residual solvent content can reduce final shrinkage and provide better dimensional control of the product, as well as reducing the tendency for moisture to separate from the feedstock and form condensation (column 7, lines 29-34). It has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, 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 method of Behi ‘150 by selecting a residual solvent content of the dried or at least partially dried feed for the benefit of reducing final shrinkage and providing better dimensional control of the product, as well as reducing the tendency for moisture to separate from the feedstock and form condensation, as suggested by Behi ‘150.
Regarding claim 31, Behi ‘150 further teaches the ceramic slurry is prepared by a process comprising:
mixing the one or more ceramic precursors with the solvent and heating (column 2, lines 18-23; column 5, lines 55-56; column 7, lines 7-8)
dissolving gelling agent in the solvent (column 2, lines 18-23; column 5, lines 17-21)
mixing the dissolved gelling agent with the mixture of the one or more ceramic precursors and the solvent (column 2, lines 18-23; column 5, lines 55-56).
Behi ‘150 is silent regarding separately dissolving the gelling agent in the solvent before adding to the mixture of the one or more ceramic precursors and the solvent. However it has been held that any order of mixing ingredients or of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04. 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 method of Behi ‘150 by dissolving the gelling agent in the solvent either before or after adding the gelling agent to the one or more ceramic precursors.
Regarding claim 32, Behi ‘150 further teaches the mixture of one or more ceramic precursors and the solvent further includes a dispersant (column 5, lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 33, Behi ‘150 further teaches mixing a reinforcing additive with the gelling agent dissolved in solvent (column 5, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 34, Behi ‘150 further teaches treating the ceramic slurry comprises:
cooling the ceramic slurry to below a gel point of the gelling agent (column 7, lines 10-11)
shredding the resultant cooled ceramic gelled material (column 7, lines 11-12)
drying and milling the shredded cooled ceramic gelled material (column 7, lines 11-15).
Regarding claim 38, Behi ‘150 further teaches that mixing the dissolved gelling agent with the mixture of the one or more ceramic precursors and the solvent is carried out in a mixing tank (column 5, lines 55-65), and further that low pressure injection molding is carried out at a gauge pressure of less than about 10 bars (column 5, line 66-column 6, line 30). As such, whatever mixing tank is used to do the mixing for the low pressure injection molding is considered to be a mixing tank of the low pressure injection molding apparatus.
Regarding claim 39, Behi ‘150 further teaches the ceramic slurry comprises at least one of a dispersant, a reinforcing additive, and a binder other than the gelling agent (column 4, lines 45-66; column 5, lines 23-34).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behi ‘150 (US 6,262,150 B1) in view of Brodkin ‘971 (US 2009/0321971 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Behi ‘150 is silent regarding treating the ceramic slurry comprising spray drying the ceramic slurry. In analogous art of preparing ceramic feedstocks, Brodkin ‘971 suggests treating a ceramic composition including ceramic precursors and binding agents by spray drying to prepare a ceramic feedstock for subsequent molding, including injection molding, as well as low-pressure injection molding (¶ [0016], [0031], [0032], [0045], [0056]). It is noted that Brodkin ‘971 suggests providing ceramic feedstock in variety of forms produced by a variety of methods. Thus 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 method of Behi ‘150 by spray drying the ceramic slurry as a substitution of known treating steps for forming a ceramic feedstock for subsequent molding, as suggested by Brodkin ‘971.
Claim(s) 36-37, 40-44, and 46-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behi ‘150 (US 6,262,150 B1) in view of Stevenson ‘954 (US 6,776,954 B1).
Regarding claim 36, Behi ‘150 is silent regarding mixing the dried or at least partially dried ceramic feedstock with a suitable amount of an additional solvent at a temperature above a gel point of the gelling agent. In analogous art of processing ceramic feedstocks for injection molding, Stevenson ‘954 suggests treating a ceramic slurry to obtain a dried ceramic feedstock, and then mixing the dried ceramic feedstock with a suitable amount of an additional solvent at a temperature above a gel point of the gelling agent for the benefit of simplifying storage or transport of the ceramic feedstock between production and subsequent use in a molding process (column 1 lines 6-12 and 14-24; column 1, line 66-column 2, line 8; column 2, line 61-column 3, line 2; column 3, lines 8-16, 45-52, and 60-67; column 4, lines 4-8, 27-34, and 37-56). While Stevenson ‘954 expresses a preference for room temperature rehydration, it also expresses that rehydration can occur at temperatures above the gel point of the gelling agent of Behi ‘150 (Behi ‘150 - column 6, lines 15-22, 32-36) (Stevenson ‘954 - column 3, lines 8-26; column 6, lines 32-33; Figs. 8, 9). Also, while initial rehydration may occur at room temperature, Stevenson ‘954 suggests performing mixing of feedstock materials at temperatures above the gel point of the gelling agent (column 3, lines 35-38; column 4, lines 56-59), which may also be utilized in the mixing of the dried feedstock with additional solvent. 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 method of Behi ‘150 by treating the ceramic slurry to obtain a dried ceramic feedstock, and then mixing the dried ceramic feedstock with a suitable amount of an additional solvent at a temperature above a gel point of the gelling agent for the benefit of simplifying storage or transport of the ceramic feedstock between production and subsequent use in a molding process, as suggested by Stevenson ‘954.
Regarding claim 37, Stevenson ‘954 further suggests the temperature is less than about 90°C (column 3, lines 8-16; column 6, lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 40, Behi ‘150 teaches:
preparing a ceramic slurry comprising one or more ceramic precursors, a temperature sensitive gelling agent, and a solvent (column 2, lines 18-23; column 3, lines 11-13)
the ceramic feedstock comprises from about 0.1 wt.% to about 2 wt.% of the temperature sensitive gelling agent (column 4, line 66-column 5, line 3).
The claimed range of percent of gelling agent overlaps the range taught by Behi ‘150. It has been held that where the claimed overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Behi ‘150 provides examples in which a slurry comprising metal precursors, a temperature sensitive gelling agent, and a solvent is prepared, and the slurry is treated under suitable conditions to obtain an at least partially dried feedstock having a residual solvent content from 0.1 to 5 wt.%, based on the total weight of the feedstock (5 wt%: column 11, lines 14-15; see also column 7, lines 12-15; column 8, lines 30-32; column 9, lines 34-37). Behi ‘150 also suggests that the disclosed methods are usable with metal powders, ceramic powders, or combinations thereof (column 2, lines 19-20). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also utilize such a treating step with a ceramic slurry. Behi ‘150 further suggests that residual solvent content is a result effective variable because decreasing residual solvent content can reduce final shrinkage and provide better dimensional control of the product, as well as reducing the tendency for moisture to separate from the feedstock and form condensation (column 7, lines 29-34). It has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, 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 method of Behi ‘150 by selecting a residual solvent content of the dried or at least partially dried feed for the benefit of reducing final shrinkage and providing better dimensional control of the product, as well as reducing the tendency for moisture to separate from the feedstock and form condensation, as suggested by Behi ‘150.
Behi ‘150 is silent regarding mixing the at least partially dried ceramic feedstock with an amount of additional solvent at a temperature above a gel point of the gelling agent to obtain a ceramic formulation having a viscosity for low pressure injection molding. In analogous art of processing ceramic feedstocks for injection molding, Stevenson ‘954 suggests treating a ceramic slurry to obtain a dried ceramic feedstock, and then mixing the dried ceramic feedstock with an amount of additional solvent at a temperature above a gel point of the gelling agent to obtain a ceramic formulation, for the benefit of simplifying storage or transport of the ceramic feedstock between production and subsequent use in a molding process (column 1 lines 6-12 and 14-24; column 1, line 66-column 2, line 8; column 2, line 61-column 3, line 2; column 3, lines 8-16, 45-52, and 60-67; column 4, lines 4-8, 27-34, and 37-56). While Stevenson ‘954 expresses a preference for room temperature rehydration, it also expresses that rehydration can occur at temperatures above the gel point of the gelling agent of Behi ‘150 (Behi ‘150 - column 6, lines 15-22, 32-36) (Stevenson ‘954 - column 3, lines 8-26; column 6, lines 32-33; Figs. 8, 9). Also, while initial rehydration may occur at room temperature, Stevenson ‘954 suggests performing mixing of feedstock materials at temperatures above the gel point of the gelling agent (column 3, lines 35-38; column 4, lines 56-59), which may also be utilized in the mixing of the dried feedstock with additional solvent. 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 method of Behi ‘150 by treating the ceramic slurry to obtain a dried ceramic feedstock, and then mixing the dried ceramic feedstock with an amount of additional solvent at a temperature above a gel point of the gelling agent to obtain a ceramic formulation, for the benefit of simplifying storage or transport of the ceramic feedstock between production and subsequent use in a molding process, as suggested by Stevenson ‘954.
In the combination of Behi ‘150 and Stevenson ‘954, a specific viscosity of the ceramic formulation as claimed is not disclosed. However Behi ‘150 further teaches that the ceramic formulation is intended for low pressure injection molding (column 5, line 66-column 6, line 30). The ceramic formulation intended for low pressure injection molding would have some viscosity, and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a workable viscosity for such a process as suggested by Behi ‘150. 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. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 41, Behi ‘150 further teaches the ceramic slurry is prepared by a process comprising:
mixing the one or more ceramic precursors with the solvent and heating (column 2, lines 18-23; column 5, lines 55-56; column 7, lines 7-8)
dissolving gelling agent in the solvent (column 2, lines 18-23; column 5, lines 17-21)
mixing the dissolved gelling agent with the mixture of the one or more ceramic precursors and the solvent (column 2, lines 18-23; column 5, lines 55-56).
Behi ‘150 is silent regarding separately dissolving the gelling agent in the solvent before adding to the mixture of the one or more ceramic precursors and the solvent. However it has been held that any order of mixing ingredients or of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04. 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 method of Behi ‘150 by dissolving the gelling agent in the solvent either before or after adding the gelling agent to the one or more ceramic precursors.
Regarding claim 42, Behi ‘150 further teaches the mixture of one or more ceramic precursors and the solvent further includes a dispersant (column 5, lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 43, Behi ‘150 further teaches mixing a reinforcing additive with the gelling agent dissolved in solvent (column 5, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 44, Behi ‘150 further teaches treating the ceramic slurry comprises:
cooling the ceramic slurry to below a gel point of the gelling agent (column 7, lines 10-11)
shredding the resultant cooled ceramic gelled material (column 7, lines 11-12)
drying and milling the shredded cooled ceramic gelled material (column 7, lines 11-15).
Regarding claim 46, Stevenson ‘954 suggests mixing the dried ceramic feedstock with an amount of an additional solvent at a temperature above the gel point of the gelling agent as described above. Stevenson ‘954 further suggests the solvent is water (column 1, lines 6-12; column 1, line 66-column 2, line 8; column 2, line 61-column 3, line 2; column 3, lines 8-16, 60-67; column 4, lines 4-8, 27-34, and 37-56).
Regarding claim 47, Stevenson ‘954 further suggests the temperature is less than about 90°C (column 3, lines 8-16; column 6, lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 48, Behi ‘150 further teaches that mixing the dissolved gelling agent with the mixture of the one or more ceramic precursors and the solvent is carried out in a mixing tank (column 5, lines 55-65), and further that low pressure injection molding is carried out at a gauge pressure of less than about 10 bars (column 5, line 66-column 6, line 30). As such, whatever mixing tank is used to do the mixing for the low pressure injection molding is considered to be a mixing tank of the low pressure injection molding apparatus.
Regarding claim 49, Behi ‘150 further teaches the ceramic slurry comprises at least one of a dispersant, a reinforcing additive, and a binder other than the gelling agent (column 4, lines 45-66; column 5, lines 23-34).
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behi ‘150 (US 6,262,150 B1) and Stevenson ‘954 (US 6,776,954 B1) in view of Brodkin ‘971 (US 2009/0321971 A1).
Regarding claim 45, Behi ‘150 is silent regarding treating the ceramic slurry comprising spray drying the ceramic slurry. In analogous art of preparing ceramic feedstocks, Brodkin ‘971 suggests treating a ceramic composition including ceramic precursors and binding agents by spray drying to prepare a ceramic feedstock for subsequent molding, including injection molding, as well as low-pressure injection molding (¶ [0016], [0031], [0032], [0045], [0056]). It is noted that Brodkin ‘971 suggests providing ceramic feedstock in variety of forms produced by a variety of methods. Thus 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 method of Behi ‘150 by spray drying the ceramic slurry as a substitution of known treating steps for forming a ceramic feedstock for subsequent molding, as suggested by Brodkin ‘971.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art is related to gelling compositions with low amounts of solvent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741