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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide (US 2016/0083300A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ide et al discloses method of manufacturing a ceramic foundry filter for metal filtration [abstract], the method comprising: carbonizing (ST7) and pyrolyzing the 3D printed ceramic porous structure (ST8) as to introduce and form a network of carbon bonds to the 3D printed ceramic porous structure, in the manufacturing of the ceramic foundry filter for metal filtration [0060, 0083-0083],
wherein the carbonizing is effected by having a carbon precursor added to a ceramic printing medium [0007, 0013] used in 3D printing the 3D printed ceramic porous structure (figure 2),
prior to the 3D printed ceramic porous structure being 3D printed, such that the 3D printed ceramic porous structure is already embedded with carbon precursor material, said precursor material comprising at least one of a liquid resin [0072], powdered carbon [0108], a ceramic binder [0022, 0034], a ceramic material [0008, 0022], an antioxidant [0027], a rheological additive [0039], and a carbon slurry [0142]; and wherein the 3D printing process used is lithographic ceramic 3D printing, or 3D printing based on extrusion deposition, powder bed, ceramic jet printing, or fusion deposition modelling (selective laser printing is a subset of powder bed printing).
As for the limitation wherein the carbonizing and pyrolyzing of the 3d printed ceramic porous structure is performed without further impregnating and/or coating the 3D printed ceramic porous structure with a carbon precursor. Ide et al discloses In the preparation of the green body, a thin layer of a raw material is formed (ST2 in FIG. 1), a desired area in the thin layer is irradiate with laser to sinter the thin layer and thus to form a sintered thin layer (ST3 in FIG. 1). This process is repeated by a desired number of times to obtain a desired green body laminated a plurality of the sintered thin layers (ST4 in FIG. 1) [0056]. Therefore, one ordinary skill in the art would understand the pyrolyzing is occurring without further impregnating and or coating the 3d printed ceramic porous structure. Further MPEP 2144.04 states Omission of an Element and its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired or required. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the element or step the function attributed thereto is not desired or required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have omitted the step wherein the carbonizing and pyrolyzing of the 3d printed ceramic porous structure is performed without further impregnating and/or coating the 3D printed ceramic porous structure with a carbon precursor since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Ide et al teaches wherein the precursor material is powdered carbon and comprises graphite [0036].
Regarding claim 3, Ide et al teaches wherein the method includes carbonizing and pyrolyzing the 3d printed ceramic porous structure without further impregnating and/or coating the 3d printed ceramic porous structure with a carbon precursor [0042; figure 1].
Regarding claim 4, Ide eat al teaches wherein the liquid resin is a phenolic liquid resin [0072].
Regarding claim 5, Ide et al teaches wherein the method includes carbonizing and pyrolyzing the 3d printed ceramic porous structure without further impregnating and/or coating the 3d printed ceramic porous structure with a carbon precursor [0042; figure 1].
Regarding claim 6, Ide eat al teaches wherein the liquid resin is a phenolic liquid resin [0072].
Regarding claim 7, Ide et al teaches wherein the ceramic printing medium includes a liquid resin0072], a ceramic material [0008, 0022], and a powdered carbon [0036] or carbon slurry [0142].
Regarding claim 8, Ide et al teaches wherein the pyrolyzing follows the 3D printing (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Ide et al does not explicitly teach wherein the 3d printed ceramic porous structure is pyrolyzable at 900 C. However, Ide et al teaches “The infiltration of silicon and the reaction sintering of the carbon contained in the fired body with silicon contained in the fired body, are carried out at or above a melting point of silicon” [0096]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the 3d printed ceramic porous structure is pyrolyzable at 900 C since it is conventionally known to fire above the melting point. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Ide et al does not explicitly disclose the ceramic porous structure, post pyrolyzing, is able to withstand temperature of 2700 C. However, composite structure is similar to the applicant’s structure and thus, has similar properties. Therefore, the claimed physical properties implicitly would have been achieved by the composite structure as claimed and rendered obvious (MPEP 2112.01(I,II)). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is
no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions.
Regarding claim 11, Ide et al disclose wherein the 3D printed ceramic porous structure is printed so as to be porous [0007].
Regarding claim 12, Ide et al discloses wherein the 3D printed ceramic porous structure is printed to include a plurality of pores and/or pathways sized and dimensioned to enable post-pyrolysis filtration of molten metal therethrough [0007].
Allowable Subject Matter
The current prior arts on record, Ide et al, Kim et al (US2014/0242327 A1) and Hickman (US 6,372,289 B1) fail to properly disclose or suggest wherein the first and second carbon precursors are different, wherein the first carbon precursor has a higher viscosity than the second precursor, wherein the second precursor comprises particles of a differing particle size to that of the first carbon precursor, and a different binder medium, ceramic material, antioxidant, and/or rheological additive, wherein only the second carbon precursor includes antioxidant, the antioxidant inhibiting oxidation of the carbon in the network of carbon bonds in the manufactured ceramic foundry filter, wherein the coating on the entirety of the exterior of the impregnated 3D printed ceramic porous structure inhibits oxidation of the network of carbon bonds beneath the coating, and wherein the first carbon precursor preferentially impregnates the 3D printed porous structure relative to the second precursor, and so that the second precursor provides an external boundary layer with refractory properties
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Ide fails to teach wherein the carbonizing and pyrolyzing of the 3D printed ceramic porous structure is performed without further impregnating and/or coating the 3D printed ceramic porous structure with a carbon precursor. Ide et al discloses In the preparation of the green body, a thin layer of a raw material is formed (ST2 in FIG. 1), a desired area in the thin layer is irradiate with laser to sinter the thin layer and thus to form a sintered thin layer (ST3 in FIG. 1). This process is repeated by a desired number of times to obtain a desired green body laminated a plurality of the sintered thin layers (ST4 in FIG. 1) [0056]. Therefore, one ordinary skill in the art would understand the pyrolyzing is occurring without further impregnating and or coating the 3d printed ceramic porous structure. Further MPEP 2144.04 states Omission of an Element and its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired or required. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the element or step the function attributed thereto is not desired or required.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
