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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because while the claims are directed to a sintered material, the abstract is totally devoid of any sintered material; instead, the abstract includes methods and only one line mentioning a method of “forming a layer of material on grains”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WEIMER (US-2022/0127198).
Claim 1: Weimer teaches a sintered material having a microstructure comprising a primary phase defining a plurality of grain boundaries; and a secondary phase confined to the plurality of grain boundaries (para. 0030, 0080 and claim 1), wherein the secondary phase comprises less than or about 10 wt % of the sintered material (para. 0065 and claim 20).
Claims 2-3: Weimer teaches the primary phase (core particles) comprising aluminum nitride and the secondary phase (boundary coating) comprising yttrium oxide (claim 15).
Claim 4: Weimer teaches that the sintered material is formed by sintering a coated powder (claim 1).
Claim 5: Weimer teaches the coated powder comprising an aluminum nitride (AlN) core and a rare earth oxide (Y2O3) shell (Weimer, claim 15).
Claims 6-7: Claims 6 and 7 are product-by-process claims. It has been held that if the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2113. Here, because the sintered material taught by Weimer is the same as that of the claimed invention as discussed in claims 1-5 above, how the product is made is not given patentable weight as decided in In re Thorpe.
Claim 10: : Weimer teaches a sintered material having a microstructure comprising a primary phase defining a plurality of grain boundaries; and a secondary phase confined to the plurality of grain boundaries (para. 0030, 0080 and claim 1), wherein the that the sintered material is formed by sintering a coated powder which is prepared by an ALD process (Weimer, claim 1).
Claim 11: Claim 11 is a product-by-process claim. It has been held that if the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2113. Here, because the sintered material taught by Weimer is the same as that of the claimed invention as discussed in claim 10 above, how the product is made is not given patentable weight as decided in In re Thorpe.
Claims 12-13: Weimer teaches the primary phase (core particles) comprising aluminum nitride and the secondary phase (boundary coating) comprising yttrium oxide (Weimer, claim 15).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weimer.
Weimer teaches Weimer teaches a sintered material having a microstructure comprising a primary phase defining a plurality of grain boundaries; and a secondary phase confined to the plurality of grain boundaries (para. 0030, 0080 and claim 1), wherein the secondary phase comprises less than or about 10 wt % of the sintered material (para. 0065 and claim 20). The broad range of less than 10 wt% as taught by Weimer encompasses the narrower range of less than 3 wt% as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to arrive at the smaller proportion of the secondary phase material through routine experimentations absence of showing criticality for the narrower range as claimed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weimer in view of MIYAMOTO (US-2020/0148598).
Weimer teaches the claimed sintered material comprising a dual phase structure of AlN primary phase and Y2O3 secondary phase as discussed above. Weimer does not suggest the industrial application of the sintered material. Miyamoto reports that AlN sintered material is widely used as substrate for metal circuits carrying semiconductor devices (Miyamoto, para. 0002-0003) and Miyamoto teaches a specific sintered material comprising AlN as the primary component and yttrium oxide as the secondary component (Miyamoto, para. 0004, 0018-0019 and 0072). In light of the teaching of Miyamoto, it would have been obvious to utilize the sintered material of Weimer as the substrate for semiconductor devices as taught by Miyamoto because the sintered material of Weimer comprises essentially the same materials (AlN primary and yttrium oxide secondary components) as that of Miyamoto.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
HOA (Holly) LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/HOA (Holly) LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
